Auto negligence; MCL 500.3135(1); Serious impairment of body function defined; MCL 500.3135(5); McCormick v. Carrier; Whether the impairment affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life; Piccione v. Gillette

Holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life was affected by his alleged accident-related injuries, the court reversed summary disposition for defendant and remanded. He testified that he did not work for 30 days due to those injuries. While defendant was correct that a doctor did not tell plaintiff “that he could not work for 30 days,” the court found that this was not dispositive. Plaintiff “testified that his doctor instructed him to take a week or two off of work.” When he tried to go back to work, he was sent home because “he was limping and experiencing pain.” The next day, he “expressed that he did not believe that he would be able to work because of the pain he was experiencing.” He was given a temporary leave of absence without pay as a result. He also testified that, upon his return “to work, he was permitted to ‘skip’ a certain job because it caused pain to his shoulder.” The court noted that while he only missed 30 days of work, the Supreme Court in McCormick “explicitly stated that ‘the statute does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last in order to have an effect on’” a person’s general ability to live their normal life. He also did not have to show that his general ability to live his normal life was “destroyed” and there is no minimum “‘percentage of a person’s normal manner of living that must be affected.’” The court held that the trial court erred in ruling that the undisputed evidence established the accident-related injuries did not affect plaintiff’s ability to work. In addition, the evidence supported that his personal life was affected. He testified that, “after the accident, he suffered pain in the morning while he was getting out of bed and getting dressed. [He] testified that he no longer played basketball or football or swam long distances. He was also unable to lie on his left side or watch movies in a movie theatre because of the pain and discomfort that he experienced. [He] testified that he could not walk his dogs as often or as far and that he struggled with performing certain chores.” While defendant asserted that he was not restricted from performing certain tasks by a doctor, “the fact that an injured person is cautious about participating in an activity after an accident may” show that an injury had an effect on the ability to live his or her normal life.