Claim for noneconomic tort damages under the No-Fault Act; MCL 500.3135; A serious impairment of body function; McCormick v Carrier; Chouman v Home Owners Ins Co

The court held that the trial court erred in determining that objective evidence that plaintiff-appellee suffered “injuries was sufficient to conclusively establish an impairment as required by MCL 500.3135.” Rather, there was a dispute as to “whether and to what extent, if at all, appellee is suffering present impairments, and will suffer impairments in the future[.]” Thus, the trial court erred in ruling “as a matter of law that the impairment threshold of MCL 500.3135(2)(a)” was met. After reviewing McCormick and Chouman, the court found that “to the extent that the trial court concluded that there was ‘no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of [appellee’s] injuries,’” it erred in doing so. Appellee appeared to have sustained injuries, but defendant-insurer (Farm Bureau) presented expert testimony from a doctor (A) “to support that there was no objective medical basis for many of appellee’s subjective complaints of pain and suffering and that there were no medical reasons for ongoing work restrictions or replacement services. In particular, [A] opined, ‘Symptoms exaggeration/magnification. The patient is with persistent report of neck and low back pain for which there is no clear objective medical basis.’ [A] also opined that ‘there is no clear objective medical basis at this point in time’ for the fact that appellee has not worked since the accident. These opinions from [A] show that there is a question of fact regarding the nature and extent of appellee’s injuries for the purposes of MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i).” Although it was true that A “did not dispute that appellee suffered some injuries and opined that these injuries warranted treatment over the course of eight to 12 weeks following the accident, these undisputed injuries do not preclude the existence of a material factual question because, as in Chouman, appellee has not limited his claims to past damages. Rather, appellee seeks $500,000 in damages, and he alleges permanent impairments and an ongoing inability to work as well as perform household and various other activities. Therefore, Farm Bureau is entitled to present evidence to the jury regarding the nature and extent of his injuries.” Reversed and remanded.