Auto negligence; Noneconomic loss under the No-Fault Act (NFA); MCL 500.3135; A “serious impairment of body function”; McCormick v Carrier; Patrick v Turkelson; Objectively manifested impairment; Plaintiff’s ability to lead her normal life

Holding that the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiff failed to establish “an objectively manifested impairment” or that her “alleged impairments affected her ability to lead her normal life[,]” the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant in this auto negligence case. Plaintiff sought noneconomic damages under the NFA. As to the first element required to establish a serious impairment of body function, “an objectively manifested impairment, [she] testified to subjective manifestations of pain, and her medical records describe her potential injuries and reports of pain. An objectively manifested impairment is one evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions observable by someone other than the plaintiff. Here, plaintiff presented only allegations of injuries that she asserts form the basis of her pain, but did not support these allegations with evidence of a condition or symptom objectively observable, for example, by the healthcare providers treating her alleged injuries.” Her physical therapy records indicated that while “she initially reported difficulty performing various daily activities, she had no observable impairment of her range of motion or her gait. Moreover, after a handful of physical therapy sessions she reported that she no longer was in pain, had achieved her physical therapy objectives, could stand, sit, walk, do housework, and participate in her hobbies with no or little difficulty, and chose to end physical therapy.” In addition to concluding plaintiff did not show an objectively manifested impairment, the trial court determined that she failed to “establish the third element, that the alleged impairment affected [her] general ability to lead a normal life. Plaintiff described that she experienced daily pain, that she changed jobs because of the accident, that she now was limited in participating in her prior hobby of cooking, and was completely unable to participate in her prior hobbies of doing hair and lashes.” But her physical therapy records indicated “she reported no pain when she left therapy, that she could stand, sit, and walk without difficulty, and that her range of motion was restored.” She also took three trips after the collision and moved out of state. The court found that “the trial court did not impermissibly consider the weight and credibility of the evidence[.]”