Auto negligence; “Serious impairment of body function”; McCormick v Carrier; MCL 500.3135(5); MCL 500.3135(2)(a); Objectively manifested impairments; Orvis v Moore (Unpub); Plaintiffs’ ability to lead their normal life

The court found that there were factual disputes as to “the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ respective injuries that are material to the determination whether each of them has suffered a serious impairment of body function.” Thus, it held that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to defendants-Black Tiger Trucking, LLC and Baba in this third-party auto negligence case. Plaintiffs-Vaag and Carolina contended “the trial court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that neither of them sustained serious impairment of body function as a result of their minivan being rear-ended by the semi-trailer truck” driven by Baba on Black Tiger’s behalf, and granting defendants summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The court concluded “that ample evidence was presented to the trial court establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs each suffered objectively manifested impairments.” It disagreed with the trial court and found “that, viewing the direct and circumstantial evidence in the non-movant’s favor, there is a question of material fact whether Vaag suffered an objectively manifested impairment of his head and brain.” As in Orvis, in this “case, record evidence establishes that a medical provider diagnosed him with a closed head injury and concussion, which establishes another genuine issue of material fact as to whether he sustained an additional objectively manifested impairment as a result of his brain injury.” The court likewise found “a question of material fact as to whether Carolina suffered an objectively manifested impairment of her head and brain function based on her ‘actual symptoms [and] conditions that someone other than the injured person would observe or perceive as impairing a body function,’ including the evidence of concussion-related vision issues.” Finally, as to whether their general ability to lead their normal lives was affected by their respective impairments of body function, the court found “that the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, as well as the medical record evidence contained in the lower court record, when considered as a whole, create questions of material fact.” Reversed and remanded.