Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 344210, 344183; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Jansen, and Tukel; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)**]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, summary disposition for defendant was AFFIRMED because the plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
B. Nature of Injury/Disability:
Plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries to his neck, lower back, and right knee, which the court did not describe in further detail. The “[p]laintiff testified that, since the accident, he was no longer able to work as a plumber or engage in recreational activities he previously enjoyed, such as basketball, bowling, and boxing.” Regarding plaintiff’s work, the court further noted, however, that “plaintiff regularly sought Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits on the basis of a claimed inability to work. . . Social Security Administration (SSA) records provided to the trial court establish that plaintiff applied for SSD benefits in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2016. In his 2016 application, plaintiff stated that his ability to work was limited because of problems with his left hand, knee pain, back pain, and depression. He further stated that he stopped working as of March 1, 2016, because of these issues and because he was laid off.”
C. Medical Treatment:
The court did not discuss the plaintiff’s post-accident course of treatment in detail, and only noted that immediately following the accident, plaintiff’s knee was “bothering him” but he “otherwise felt ‘okay’” and did not seek medical treatment. A few days later, he presented to the hospital, complaining of “pain in his neck, lower back, and right knee.” Hospital personnel suggested that he “might have strained something, instructed him to use warm compresses, and prescribed muscle relaxers and Motrin.” After that date, he was seen by several providers for treatment of his claimed injuries.
D. Element #1 – Objective Manifestation:
The court did not discuss this element
E. Element #2 – Important Body Function:
The court did not discuss this element
F. Element #3 – General Ability:
In holding that summary disposition was properly granted below on this element, the court reasoned that “[t]he evidence before the court demonstrated that plaintiff’s employment and participation in physical recreational activities was sporadic before the accident and remained so afterward. . . [A] surveillance report showed that plaintiff was able to do work that involved manual labor by September 2017 at the latest. He was seen lifting luggage into a vehicle, bending over to pass tools to another person, jumping to and from the bed of a pickup truck, using his hands and shoulders to pull a hose, ‘playing/boxing’ with another person, and freely ambulating without the assistance of the cane he occasionally carried, all without apparent signs of discomfort. Because a comparison of plaintiff’s preaccident and postaccident manner of living does not reveal significant changes, reasonable minds would agree that plaintiff did not sustain an impairment serious enough to affect his general ability to lead his normal life. The trial court did not err by granting summary disposition in favor of Grimble and Merriman on this basis.”
