Andrea Blackburn v. Michael Alphious Bagley
333033
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Andrea Blackburn) was a front-seat passenger in a disabled vehicle that was rear‑ended on February 2, 2013; she sustained head, neck, and low‑back pain and sought emergency care 24 hours later.
- She alleged lumbar and cervical spine injuries, ongoing pain, mental anguish, wage loss, and noneconomic damages under Michigan’s no‑fault law (MCL 500.3101 et seq.).
- Plaintiff worked part‑time as a custodial janitor (20 hours/week) before the crash; she testified she could not return to work for over two years and received physician disability notes and home‑attendant care.
- Medical records showed multiple treating physicians with divergent opinions: a neurosurgeon who released her to work, and two orthopedists who restricted work and identified mechanical back/cervical findings and reduced ROM on physical therapy.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing minimal treatment, lack of apparent injury, and limited effect on plaintiff’s ability to lead a normal life; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether disputed factual issues existed as to the third McCormick prong (effect on ability to lead a normal life) and reversed, finding material factual disputes precluded summary disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff suffered a "serious impairment of body function" under MCL 500.3135 (third McCormick prong: effect on general ability to lead normal life) | Blackburn: her post‑accident limitations (two years off work, physician restrictions, home‑attendant care, reduced ROM) materially affected her ability to lead her normal life | Bagley: injuries were minor, treatment was limited, and one physician’s opinion showed minimal injury; restrictions were unjustified | Reversed trial court: factual disputes about nature/extent of injuries and their effect on normal life are material; jury must resolve them |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (announces three‑part test for "serious impairment of body function")
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (summary‑judgment standard: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich 200 (2012) (MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests factual sufficiency of the complaint and procedures for summary disposition)