Auto negligence; Noneconomic damages under the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); Serious impairment of body function; MCL 500.3135(1); MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i) & (ii); McCormick v. Carrier; “Objectively manifested”; Principle that the aggravation or triggering of a preexisting condition can constitute a compensable injury; Fisher v. Blankenship; Proximate causation; Patrick v. Turkelson

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiff’s auto negligence claim. Plaintiff sued defendant seeking nonecomonic damages arising out of an auto accident. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant finding plaintiff failed to demonstrate an objectively manifested impairment from the collision (his third auto accident overall) because he did not proffer any objective testing that rebutted defendant’s assertion that his injuries were sustained in his other collisions, and no objective evidence was presented that suggested any preexisting conditions were aggravated by his collision with defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant was not entitled to summary disposition, noting “there was no material factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries and the trial court properly concluded that the matter was a question of law.” It also rejected his claim that he demonstrated an injury sufficient to satisfy the tort liability threshold for a serious impairment of body function, finding his “testimony failed to ‘introduce evidence establishing that there is a physical basis for [his] subjective complaints of pain and suffering,’ caused by the third collision.” Further, the records failed “to ‘establish[] a logical sequence of cause and effect,’ particularly when the exact injuries highlighted by plaintiff—cervicalgia, lumbago, muscles spasms, tenderness, pain, and limited range of motion in his neck, back, and knee—were documented in medical records in the months preceding the third collision.” Finally, “[i]n light of the delay between the third collision and the diagnosis, as well as plaintiff’s history of nerve pain and back injuries following the first and second collisions, no reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiff established a sequence of cause and effect showing that the radiculopathy was the result of the third collision.” Affirmed.