Fleeta Johnson v. William Glosson
334075
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Johnson) appealed an order designating her as a payee and the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants (Glosson and Webb) after a motor-vehicle collision.
- The dispositive legal question was whether plaintiff suffered a "serious impairment of body function" under MCL 500.3135(5), which requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.
- Medical evidence was in conflict: Dr. Drouillard concluded plaintiff’s MRI findings were degenerative, not traumatic, and found no clinical functional impairment; Drs. Hall and Mendelson identified acute findings and a shoulder tear they attributed to the October 22, 2014 accident.
- Plaintiff also had a prior slip-and-fall that jarred her left shoulder and was treated with physical therapy, creating potential preexisting-condition issues.
- The trial court resolved the threshold question as a matter of law and granted summary disposition for defendants; the Court of Appeals reviewed that decision de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established a genuine factual dispute on the McCormick serious-impairment threshold | Plaintiff argued conflicting medical opinions create a material factual dispute about whether accident caused objectively manifested, important-body-function impairing injuries | Defendants argued evidence showed degenerative, nontraumatic conditions and no functional impairment, so no threshold injury as a matter of law | Reversed: factual dispute exists; trial court erred deciding threshold as matter of law |
| Whether plaintiff’s injuries affected her general ability to lead a normal life | Plaintiff contended evidence could show her ability to live normally was affected post-accident | Defendants insisted no evidence showed impact on general ability to lead normal life | Court found the factual dispute about nature/extent of injuries was material to this question and precluded summary disposition |
| Proper standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion | Plaintiff relied on contemporary summary-judgment standard (record viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant) | Defendants relied on trial court’s legal ruling that threshold not met | Court reiterates de novo review and standard per controlling precedents; summary disposition improper here |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (defines "serious impairment of body function" and sets three-part test and analytical framework)
- Chouman v. Home Owners Ins. Co., 293 Mich App 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (threshold inquiry is fact- and circumstance-specific; factual disputes preclude deciding threshold as matter of law)
- Shinn v. Mich. Assigned Claims Facility, 314 Mich App 765 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and scope of MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Nelson v. Dubose, 291 Mich App 496 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (McCormick shifted focus to how impairments affect body function; compare pre- and post-injury life)
- Bahri v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 308 Mich App 420 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (definition of genuine issue of material fact for summary disposition)