Jeffrey M Beurkens v. Jessica Marie Bouman, 329231

Background

On Oct. 20, 2011, defendants’ vehicle rear-ended plaintiff’s car; plaintiff initially reported no injury but later sought treatment for neck, shoulder, and left-sided numbness.
Diagnostic tests (cervical X‑rays, two MRIs, an EMG, and a CT) were largely normal or showed only mild/uncertain findings; only plaintiff’s family physician, Dr. Barnes, linked mild imaging changes to the accident in a late affidavit.
Plaintiff described situational/positional left‑sided discomfort and numbness while driving or working on a computer, manageable by stretching and short maneuvers; he continued to work full time in jobs requiring computer use and physical labor and did not claim lost wages in discovery.
Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing plaintiff failed to show a no‑fault threshold injury: a serious impairment of body function under MCL 500.3135(1), (5).
The trial court granted summary disposition, reasoning that even assuming an objectively manifested impairment, plaintiff’s evidence did not show the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life; it also denied plaintiff’s rehearing request regarding alleged excess economic damages for lack of evidentiary support.
Plaintiff appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the undisputed facts failed to raise a genuine issue that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of an important body function affecting his general ability to lead his normal life, and no evidence supported excess economic damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved a "serious impairment of body function" under MCL 500.3135(5)	Beurkens argued imaging and Dr. Barnes’ affidavit show objective injury impairing an important body function and affecting his general ability to lead his normal life	Defendants argued imaging was normal or equivocal, plaintiff’s symptoms were situational/managed, and he continued normal activities and work, so no threshold injury	Court held plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue: even if objective impairment existed, it did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life; summary disposition affirmed
Whether the trial court erred by relying on earlier deposition over later affidavit asserting greater limitations	Beurkens contended his later affidavit described reduced activity and work problems after the accident	Defendants relied on deposition testimony showing continued activity and no lost wages; argued affidavit contradicted prior testimony and cannot create issue of fact	Court held the trial court properly discounted the affidavit as contradicting prior clear deposition testimony and therefore not creating a genuine factual dispute
Whether plaintiff presented evidence of excess economic damages under MCL 500.3135(3)(c)	Beurkens argued the court overlooked potential excess economic damages (work loss or other allowable expenses)	Defendants noted plaintiff disclaimed lost‑wage claims and presented no evidence of allowable expenses or survivor loss; replacement services are not recoverable in third‑party action	Court held plaintiff presented no evidence of excess economic damages; claim fails as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (Michigan Supreme Court) (defines "serious impairment of body function" and its three elements)
Miller v. Purcell, 246 Mich App 244 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (standard for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(10) and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich 169 (Michigan Supreme Court) (replacement‑services damages not recoverable in third‑party tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c))
Casey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 273 Mich App 388 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (a party cannot use a later affidavit to contradict deposition testimony to avoid summary disposition)
Hannay v. Dep’t of Transportation, 497 Mich 45 (Michigan Supreme Court) (limits on claims for lost earning capacity under MCL 500.3135(3)(c))