Auto negligence; Tort liability for noneconomic loss; MCL 500.3135(1); Serious impairment of body function; McCormick v Carrier; MCL 500.3135(5)(c); Effect of the fact a doctor had not restricted plaintiff’s activities; Piccione v Gillette

Concluding that the trial court erred in ruling “that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life[,]” the court reversed summary disposition for defendant-Debassige and remanded. This case arose after he “drove his vehicle through the front of plaintiff’s house, dislodging the front door, causing it to land on top of her.” The court noted she testified at her deposition over a year and a half later “that, before the accident, she spent her time working, riding on the back of a motorcycle, walking her dog, camping at a trailer she owned, and swimming. Plaintiff testified that her injuries prevented her from performing some of her usual janitorial tasks that required her to use both arms because she had problems with her left arm and shoulder. Although her employer accommodated her physical needs by limiting her use of certain machinery that required both arms for operation,” she did not ever return “to her preaccident physical condition. Further, after the accident, plaintiff went camping less frequently, and when she did camp, she could no longer walk around or serve food like she used to do. She also testified that since the accident she has been completely unable to ride on a motorcycle, walk her dog, take walks without experiencing leg problems, or swim.” In addition, her medical records reported “she experienced ‘a loss of motion,’ ‘a loss of sensation,’ and pain that became ‘worse with activity.’” Her 2019 physical therapy records indicated “that her injuries limited her ability to wash herself, dress herself, and perform tasks around her house without” help. They also indicated “she was unable to walk, sit, or stand for more than a brief amount of time. The medical records describe significant effects on plaintiff’s social life and ability to sleep.” Although an evaluation in 2019 showed “improvement in several areas, it still described limitations on plaintiff’s social life, ability to perform household tasks such as lifting objects and vacuuming, and ability to sleep.” She testified to these limitations at her deposition. Noting that the fact a physician had not restricted her activities was not fatal to her case, the court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to “whether her injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life establishing a serious impairment of bodily function.”