Auto negligence; MCL 500.3135(1); McCormick v. Carrier; “Serious impairment of body function”; MCL 500.3135(5); Existence of a genuine issue of material fact; Patrick v. Turkelson; Absence of an express temporal requirement; Piccione as Next Friend of Piccione v. Gillette; Defendants’ reliance on McDanield v. Hemker

Concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to “the extent and nature of plaintiff’s injuries, limitations, and ability to lead his normal life[,]” the court reversed summary disposition for defendants and remanded. The record showed “significant contradictions” about the extent and nature of his injuries from the 10/17 accident. Hospital ER records indicated “x-rays taken the day of the accident show plaintiff suffered a three-millimeter fracture to his left elbow. This diagnosis was largely confirmed the next day” in a follow-up appointment with a doctor (G). Further, records from an ER visit as recently as 11/18 also stated he “continued to experience pain when using his left arm.” But his medical records also showed, “even the day after the accident, that plaintiff experienced a normal range of motion with his left elbow and did not require an arm sling for comfort. At a follow-up appointment a month after the accident, the case notes” indicated a full range of motion in his left elbow without pain or discomfort. In light of the contradictory evidence, the trial court erred in proceeding “to address, as a matter of law, the question of whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function.” The court found that it further “erred by applying the wrong legal standard in assessing the third prong of the McCormick test and” that application of the correct standard showed the existence of a genuine issue of material fact “whether plaintiff’s impairment affects his ability to lead his normal life.” He was self-employed as a handyman at the time of the accident. His medical records revealed “he was unable to work, at all, for a week and” G directed him to limit some “activities for at least two months after the accident.” Records from his 11/18 ER visit indicated he continued “to experience pain in his left elbow and arm, especially when putting pressure on the area. According to plaintiff’s deposition testimony and interrogatory answers, this continued pain required him to self-limit and restrict work and everyday activities after the accident.” In addition, although the time period his “impairment affected his ability to lead his normal life could be as short as two months, or even a week, after the accident, an impairment need not be permanent.”