Auto negligence action; Whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function; MCL 500.3135(1); McCormick v Carrier

Holding that plaintiff failed “to show any objectively manifested impairment evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than she would observe or perceive as impairing a body function,” the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when defendant rear-ended the vehicle in which she was a passenger. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant because a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether objective neurological findings showed that she suffered a head injury in the accident that caused her persistent headaches. She “failed to show a physical basis for her subjective complaints of headaches. [Her] medical records clearly document that [she] is in subjective pain. But other than [her] subjective complaints of pain, plaintiff did not present any medical records or medical testimony to show that she has suffered an objectively manifested impairment as is required to recover noneconomic damages under the” No-Fault Act. “All imaging such as MRI scans, CT scans, and X-rays, as well as physical exams, were recorded as normal or benign. All other diagnoses appear to have been made from plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain. [She] underwent three independent medical examinations, none of which indicated [she] suffered an objectively manifested impairment caused by the accident at issue.”