Auto negligence; The No-Fault Act (NFA); Burden of production under MCR 2.116(G)(3) & (4); “Serious impairment of body function”; McCormick v Carrier; Objectively manifested impairment; Important body function; A plaintiff’s general ability to lead their normal life; Proximate causation

On reconsideration, the court concluded the “records all supported that plaintiff suffered impairments that were observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions and were consistent with [his] complaints of pain.” Also, under the McCormick standard, the testimony “supported that plaintiff’s impairments were to body functions that were of ‘great value, significance, or consequence’ to him.” The court held that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition “on the issue whether plaintiff suffered a threshold injury.” Finally, it found that plaintiff showed “that the accident was more than just a possible cause of his injuries.” Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition in this third-party action under the NFA and remanded. The case involved a 2021 motor-vehicle collision. Plaintiff argued that “factual disputes existed on whether he suffered a serious impairment of body function and whether the accident caused his injuries.” The court agreed with both arguments. Among other things, it found that examining “the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the medical records, including those from [his] urgent-care visit, his physical therapy sessions, his massage-therapy sessions, his pain-management doctor, and his chiropractor, supported that plaintiff suffered observable and perceivable impairments. To start, the day after the accident, plaintiff went to an urgent-care facility complaining of pain. For the most part, [he] had a normal examination with no ‘red flag’ signs. But plaintiff did experience pain when bending and rotating his neck, and his right hip was slightly tender to the touch. Thus, his impairments to his neck and hip were observable and perceivable.” Similarly, the court held that his “physical-therapy records also supported the existence of an objectively manifested impairment.” The court noted that his “impairments did not disappear with physical therapy, and he consulted a pain-management doctor and a massage therapist. He also continued to treat with his chiropractor.” The court additionally determined that a “reasonable fact-finder could infer from plaintiff’s young age, [his] activities before the accident, [his] reports of injuries the day after the accident, and the nature of [his] injuries, that the motor-vehicle accident caused his impairments.”