In a recent case, the Michigan Court of Appeals has found that a car accident victim failed to prove that she sustained a serious impairment of a body function.
In this case, the car accident victim was injured in a Michigan auto accident when the car she was driving was rear-ended by a car driven by the defendant. The car accident victim did not immediately go to the hospital after the accident but she was thereafter diagnosed with two bulging discs at L3-L4 and L4-L5, lumbar radiculopathy, and disc protrusion at L4-L5. The victim was let go from her job due to carpal tunnel syndrome. Prior to the Michigan auto accident, the injury victim did not have a job, but was able to cook, clean, do laundry, and take care of her family. She also enjoyed dancing with her husband, playing volleyball, walking around an athletic track occasionally, shopping, and attending her daughter’s activities. Since the accident, though, the accident victim claims she is unable to do household chores, cook, or shop due to the pain it causes. She is also unable to attend her daughter’s activities because it is too painful to sit down and watch them. She stated these activities were a major part of her life.
As explained in more details at the Michigan tort liability page,in Michigan, pursuant to M.C.L. 500.3135, an accident victim can pursue tort liability only if they have sustained one of the three threshold injuries:
- Death
- Serious impairment of a body function
- Permanent serious disfigurement
The Michigan Court of Appeals explained that, “[a] serious impairment of body function is an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his normal life.”
However, the court stated that “[s]elf-imposed restriction based on perceived or real pain, as opposed to doctor-imposed restrictions, does not establish the extent of any residual impairment. Conversely, physician imposed restrictions, based on a patient’s real or perceived pain, can establish the extent of a residual impairment.”
Here, the court of appeals found that there was no evidence of physician-imposed restrictions based on the car accident victim’s pain. Further, the court stated, “the record is devoid of any physician imposed restricting plaintiff from certain activities, merely a doctor’s note in a chart that she continues to complain of pain from her back issues.”
Click here to read the full opinion.
This case clearly shows the importance of consulting with an experienced and successful Michigan auto accident lawyer. If you are injured in a Michigan car accident, set up a free legal consultation with a specialized Michigan car accident law firm that can properly evaluate your case and advise you on how to proceed.
