Auto negligence; The no-fault threshold of a “serious impairment of body function”; McCormick v Carrier; Patrick v Turkelson; Independent Medication Examination (IME)

Holding that plaintiff did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the no-fault “serious impairment of body function” threshold, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition. The court noted that there did not appear to be any “dispute over the extent of plaintiff’s injuries sustained in the” parties’ auto accident. They were detailed in an emergency department physician’s report, and those findings were uncontested. Thus, under McCormick, it was “appropriate to determine whether those injuries reach the threshold for a serious impairment of body function.” Plaintiff pointed to an “IME as evidence of an objectively manifested impairment. But the report provides little support for” his position. While he cited “to a statement in the report that plaintiff’s legs are tender to the touch[,]” the court noted the report did not reflect that this was the doctor’s (H) observation “rather than plaintiff’s complaint to [H]. And, for that matter, the report states that plaintiff is able to ambulate and walks with a normal gait.” The closest the report came “to noting a physical impairment is a ‘slight weakness of his quadriceps mechanism due to the injury of his left knee.’ [H] concluded that there was no need for surgical treatment and the only restriction on plaintiff was a ‘sit/stand option with any kind of work he does.’” As to plaintiff reliance on portions of the report discussing the accident’s effect on his mental health, the court found there were “two reasons why this reliance is misplaced. First, these are not the doctor’s observations but are instead plaintiff’s reports.” Second, H was “an orthopedic surgeon, not a psychiatrist. Any discussion of plaintiff’s mental health condition is simply outside the doctor’s scope of practice.” Noting that guidance could be found in Patrick, the court concluded that what was missing here were “the objective observations that buttress plaintiff’s subjective complaints. At best, the objective evidence plaintiff submitted supports some tenderness remaining in his legs. But the objective evidence of impairment is lacking[.]” Thus, the court held that plaintiff failed to point to any “evidence of an actual impairment to an important body function.” As to the third prong, a “showing that the impairment affects the general ability to lead” his normal life, the court again found the available evidence did not support his claim.