Auto negligence; MCL 500.3135(1) & (2); “Serious impairment of body function”; MCL 500.3135(5); McCormick v. Carrier; Aggravation of a pre-existing condition; Wilkinson v. Lee; Factual & legal causation requirements; Ray v. Swager; Inadequacy of a causation theory based only on slight evidence; Skinner v. Square D Co.; Mental or emotional injuries as an impairment of body function; Luce v. Gerow

Concluding that plaintiff did not establish an objective impairment of body function and thus, was unable to recover for defendant-driver’s alleged auto negligence, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. While backing up, defendant struck a parked vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. Plaintiff alleged several impairments – “(1) re-injury to her left knee and left-knee replacement, associated swelling, loss of range of motion, and functional difficulties; (2) acute aggravation of pre-existing neck and back strain; (3) aggravation of sleep dysfunction and nightmares; (4) aggravation of PTSD and associated symptoms; and (5) MRI-confirmed small nonspecific 9 mm defined T1 hypointense/T2 hyperintense lesion with joint effusion.” However, the court held that she did not offer objective evidence that the “accident caused any of these alleged impairments, either physical or mental, in order to establish tort liability.” There was no medical evidence that her back and neck strain “were objectively issues after the accident.” While she testified that they were aggravated after it, she did not have “any tests, scans, or x-rays relating to these alleged aggravations.” There was no mention in the objective medical record after the accident of her “back or neck being a source of concern after the accident, let alone any back or neck pain caused by the accident. Plaintiff’s mere subjective complaints” were insufficient. Further, there was no evidence that her complaints of left knee pain and buckling that led to the MRI being done were related to the accident. The record showed she had “chronic knee pain since 1997, and that her knees had deteriorated so badly that both required a total replacement.” Further, while the objective medical record mentioned the accident, her “subjective complaints of setbacks” in her recovery from the left knee replacement and increased pain after the accident were not supported objectively. A medical exam right after the accident showed no harm to the artificial knee. There was also no evidence that the accident caused “her difficultly sleeping, nightmares, and PTSD symptoms[.]” The court noted that she did not allege the accident caused these issues, but rather “stated that defendant’s behavior after the accident” aggravated her nightmares and PTSD.