 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mansor v. Girnet10/25/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Saad, P.J., and Jansen and Markey, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals by right the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition. We decide this appeal without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We affirm.
Plaintiff alleges defendants' vehicle struck her while she was walking and she lost consciousness for a short time. She presented to the emergency room with complaints of a headache and pain from a small cut over her right eye. Various diagnostic tests, including x-rays, were negative. In the subsequent months plaintiff consulted her family physician and a neurologist, and complained of headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, and neck and back pain. Her family physician diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from a concussion, and prescribed medication to control her pain and dizziness. The neurologist diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from post concussion syndrome, traumatic cervical/lumbar sprain and paraspinal muscle spasm and tenderness, and prescribed medication. An MRI performed several months after the accident showed mild cervical disc bulging, as well as other changes. Both physicians indicated that plaintiff required assistance with daily living activities. Three independent medical examiners opined that plaintiff did not exhibit pathology related to the accident.
Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that the injuries she sustained in the accident constituted a serious impairment of body function. Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that plaintiff's complaints could not be attributed to the accident, and that any injuries plaintiff suffered in the accident did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. Defendants asserted that the evidence showed that plaintiff lived a sedentary life prior to the accident, and that her life had not changed to any appreciable degree after the accident. The trial court agreed that plaintiff had not suffered a tort liability threshold injury of death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement, MCL 500.3135(1), and granted defendants' motion.
We review a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 129; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).
A serious impairment of body function is "an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life." MCL 500.3135(7). "'In order for an impairment to be objectively manifested, there must be a medically identifiable injury or condition that has a physical basis.'" Jackson v Nelson, 252 Mich App 643, 652-653; 654 NW2d 604 (2002), approving SJI2d 36.11. See, also, Moore v Cregeur, 266 Mich App 515, 519; 702 NW2d 648 (2005), finding "objective medical evidence" documented the plaintiff's eye injury, and Williams v Medukas, 266 Mich App 505, 507; 702 NW2d 667 (2005), where the plaintiff's "injuries were objectively manifested by x-rays."
Whether a person has suffered a serious impairment of body function is a question of law for the court if there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the injuries, or if there is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the injuries but the dispute is not material to whether the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function. MCL 500.3135(2)(a). Otherwise, the determination whether the plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function is a question of fact for the jury.
Whether a person is generally able to lead his or her normal life requires considering whether the objectively manifested impairment has affected the c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|