Auto negligence; “Serious impairment of an important body function”; MCL 500.3135(1) & (5); McCormick v Carrier; Causation; Patrick v Turkelson; The ability to move one’s back as an important body function

In this third-party no-fault action, the court held that a factual dispute existed as to “the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries” and that it was material to determining whether she suffered a threshold injury under MCL 500.3135(1). Thus, it reversed summary judgment for defendant-Alson and remanded. It first found record evidence supported “that plaintiff sustained objectively manifested impairments to her back, neck, and shoulder caused by the accident.” Records from one doctor (H) showed “that he detected ‘traumatic spondylopathy’ in” her cervical region, and another doctor indicated she “had a flattening of her cervical lordotic curve, decreased range of motion, and an elevated left shoulder as a result of muscle spasm.” Thus, there was “evidence of objectively manifested impairments.” Further, it was “reasonably inferable” that the impairments resulted from the accident. She was transported to the hospital “and complained of neck and shoulder pain. Three days later, plaintiff followed up with her primary care physician and again complained of neck and shoulder pain. About two weeks later, [she] called her primary care physician and complained of pain and indicated she wanted to try physical therapy. About a month later, [she] was diagnosed with a sprain of cervical spine ligaments, traumatic spondylopathy in cervical region, flattening of cervical lordotic curve, decreased range of motion, and an elevated shoulder” due to a muscle spasm. Thus, the court found her evidence showed “a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect’ that these impairments were a result of the accident.” It also noted it has previously recognized the “‘ability to move one’s back is an important body function’” and plaintiff’s deposition testimony showed “her pain impacted her ability to walk, participate in recreational activities, and perform certain physical tasks at work.” As to their effect on her general ability to live her normal life, there was evidence she missed eight days of work due to the accident, and H disabled her from housework for nearly six weeks. Plaintiff also “testified she could no longer bowl or play softball,” activities she regularly participated in previously. While defendant suggested there was no factual dispute because plaintiff’s only alleged injuries were “soft tissue in nature” the court noted that “neither the case law nor MCL 500.3135 render persistent ‘soft tissue’ injuries nonrecoverable[.]”