 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rammeloo v. Williams11/25/2003
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a judgment granting summary disposition to defendants Williams and Gelco Corporation pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident involving plaintiff David Rammeloo (hereinafter "plaintiff") and defendant Williams, in which plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Williams and owned by the Gelco Corporation. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered a serious impairment of body function, MCL 500.3135, in an attempt to recover non-economic losses. On appeal, plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred in rejecting his position that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) constituted a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff argues that there remains a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the PTSD claim. We affirm.
I. COMPLAINT
There is no dispute that plaintiff was involved in three motor vehicle accidents, all of which formed the basis of the complaint. Plaintiff's first accident, the subject of this appeal, occurred on December 31, 1997, and involved defendants. The second accident occurred three weeks later on January 20, 1998, and involved Alfons Rigole. The third accident occurred on July 24, 1998, involving Craig Harrison. There is also no dispute that before any of these accidents, in August 1997, plaintiff's brother died in a motor vehicle accident that did not involve plaintiff. His brother's fatal accident was not referenced in plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff alleged that in the first accident, Williams violently rear-ended his vehicle near an intersection. With respect to the second accident, plaintiff alleged that a vehicle operated by Alfons Rigole, and owned by Rachel Rigole, violently rear-ended his vehicle. As to the third accident, plaintiff alleged that a motor vehicle owned and operated by Craig Harrison violently rear-ended his vehicle. Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of Williams, Rigole, and Harrison, and liability for the remaining defendants predicated on vehicle ownership.
Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the accidents, he suffered serious impairment of body function and serious permanent disfigurement, including a closed-head injury , dizziness, headaches, a herniated cervical disk, blurred vision, extreme shock to the nervous system, great physical pain, and mental anguish. There is no specific reference to PTSD in the complaint. Plaintiff allegedly incurred extensive medical bills, a loss of earnings and earning capacity, and has been rendered disabled and unable to attend to his usual, ordinary affairs.
II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
A. Defendants' Arguments
Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). They maintained that plaintiff did not suffer a serious impairment of body function and failed to show any injuries resulting from the first accident. Defendants argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff did not have an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affected his general ability to lead his normal life. According to defendants, any alleged injuries suffered by plaintiff, or any alleged serious impairment, was the result of the second and third accidents.
B. Evidence Presented at Summary Disposition
Plaintiff's Deposition
Plaintiff was deposed in this action, and his deposition forms the basis for some of the parties' arguments below and on appeal. Plaintiff was thirty-three years old at the time of the first accident and married. He was employed as a superintendent for GTR, a construction company,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|