Third-party no-fault action; Serious impairment of body function; MCL 500.3135(1); MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i) & (ii); MCL 500.3135(5); McCormick v. Carrier; Patrick v. Turkelson; The “closed-head injury provision” of § 3135; Churchman v. Rickerson

The court held that the trial court failed to address the nature and extent of plaintiff’s closed-head injury, but found his claims meritless in all other respects. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries he sustained when defendant-truck driver drove off the road and crashed. Plaintiff was sleeping in the truck’s sleeper cab at the time. The trial court granted disposition for defendants, finding that plaintiff failed to show an objectively manifested impairment of a body function, and that any alleged injury did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by failing to address the threshold question of whether there was a factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of his injuries. The court found that the trial court erred as to his alleged closed-head injury, but found his claim meritless in all other respects. “[T]he trial court failed to address the nature and extent of plaintiff’s closed-head injury,” and thus, under Churchman, “remand is required so that the trial court may address this threshold question.” It also failed to address the medical diagnosis “when it applied the McCormick three-prong test to plaintiff’s closed-head injury.” As such, it directed the trial court on remand to “reevaluate the evidence of the closed-head injury in a light most favorable to” plaintiff, if it “reaches the McCormick test after answering the threshold question . . . .” The court next rejected his contention that, even if there was no factual dispute as to the nature and extent of his shoulder, neck, and back injuries, the trial court nonetheless erred by concluding that he did not suffer a serious impairment of a body function. It found “no objectively manifested impairments” with his dislocated shoulder and his neck and back spasms. It also rejected his argument that the trial court erred by holding that his injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life, noting there was “no showing that the shoulder, neck, or back injuries have affected his ability to do any of" the activities he cited, "and the medical records all indicate normal functioning.” Finally, it found that the trial court “did not err in its analysis, and summary disposition was properly granted in favor of defendants as to the shoulder, neck, and back injuries.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.