Auto negligence; No-fault noneconomic damages; Serious impairment of body function; “Objectively manifested” impairment; MCL 500.3135(1) & (5)(a); McCormick v Carrier

The court held that plaintiff failed to create a question of fact that she suffered an “objectively manifested” impairment as required to recover noneconomic damages for auto negligence under Michigan’s no-fault threshold. Plaintiff was involved in a collision while attempting to push a disabled vehicle. She later pursued “excess economic/non-economic damages” under the No-Fault Act while also asserting negligence-based theories against the truck driver and trucking company. The trial court granted summary disposition on the serious-impairment threshold. On appeal the court emphasized that MCL 500.3135(5)(a) requires an impairment that is “objectively manifested,” meaning it is “observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions by someone other than the injured person.” Applying McCormick, the court stressed that “the proper inquiry is whether the impairment is objectively manifested, not the injury or its symptoms,” and that “an impairment is distinct from an injury” because the focus “is not on the injuries themselves, but how the injuries affected a particular body function.” The court rejected plaintiff’s reliance on imaging findings like “a disc bulge and spinal stenosis,” explaining these were “at best” proof of an injury rather than proof that an impairment was observable to others. It also found plaintiff’s restriction paperwork largely listed diagnoses such as “C-L RADICULOPATHY” without explaining objective findings tied to functional impairment, and it noted the records simultaneously stated there was “currently no electrodiagnostic evidence” of radiculopathy. The court contrasted plaintiff’s proof with cases where plaintiffs presented medical and lay testimony showing observable functional deficits, and it concluded plaintiff offered no comparable evidence showing her claimed limitations were “observed by others.” Affirmed.