Auto negligence action; Serious impairment threshold under MCL 500.3135(1) & (5); “Objectively manifested impairment”; McCormick v Carrier; “Normal life”; Youth activity limits; Piccione v Gillette

The court held that a jury could find a serious impairment because objective medical proof along with the teen plaintiff’s testimony about curtailed summer activities and ongoing limits while running created a genuine issue on whether her general ability to lead her normal life was affected. The court agreed with the trial court that chest-pain complaints were insufficient standing alone to establish a threshold injury, but noted that the record also contained objective evidence of cervical disc injury and a treating chiropractor’s affidavit causally tying it to the crash. “[T]he MRI results and the chiropractor’s affidavit both support the presence of an objectively manifested injury to” plaintiff’s neck. Applying McCormick, the court reiterated that “the statute merely requires that a person’s general ability to lead his or her life has been affected, not destroyed,” and concluded “the evidence allows for an inference that [plaintiff’s] general ability to lead her normal life was affected, though not completely destroyed.” The court noted her testimony that, as a 14-year-old, the summer after the wreck she “only went to the chiropractor, not out,” and continued to experience shortness of breath and chest discomfort while running, distinguishing between minor, transient complaints and record evidence that a jury could credit as affecting her normal life. Because this created “a factual conflict with the nature and extent of” her injuries, summary disposition was not appropriate. Reversed and remanded.