Marvin Asker v. Ishmael Sanders
331452
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- On Aug. 22, 2012, Asker’s stopped car was rear-ended (~10–15 mph) by Sanders driving a Comcast van; Asker immediately felt back/neck pain and sought ER care the same day (x‑rays negative).
- Asker later treated with chiropractic care, physical therapy, and multiple physicians; MRIs (2013, 2014) showed cervical and lumbar disc herniations and protrusions.
- Treating providers documented restricted range of motion, nerve‑distribution sensory deficits, muscle atrophy, and temporary orders for attendant/domestic care and activity restrictions.
- Asker sued Sanders and Comcast for noneconomic damages under Michigan’s no‑fault threshold (MCL 500.3135), alleging a serious impairment of body function. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- The trial court granted summary disposition, finding (1) causation inadequately proved and (2) Asker failed to show his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life (noting Asker’s post‑accident travel).
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding triable factual issues exist on objective manifestation, effect on normal life, and causation; trial court erred in its legal analysis and in raising causation sua sponte without notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary disposition was proper on the no‑fault "serious impairment" threshold | Asker argued medical records, MRIs, provider findings, and testimony created factual disputes on injury severity and threshold satisfaction | Defendants argued Asker failed to show an objectively manifested serious impairment affecting his general ability to lead his normal life | Reversed: genuine factual disputes exist; threshold question not appropriately decided as a matter of law on this record |
| Whether Asker showed an objectively manifested impairment (McCormick prong 1) | Medical records and imaging corroborate subjective pain and show physical basis (herniated discs, deficits) | Defendants contended lack of sworn medical testimony at the motion hearing and reliance on unpublished, nonbinding decisions | Held: objective medical records and imaging sufficed to create a factual question; sworn testimony not always required under McCormick |
| Whether impairment affected general ability to lead a normal life (McCormick prong 3) | Asker testified he became more sedentary, could not engage in prior athletic activities, had limits caring for children and in sexual activity; providers documented functional limits | Defendants emphasized Asker’s post‑accident travel and lack of invasive treatment/hospitalization to argue his general life was not affected | Held: court must compare before/after life; some aspects of Asker’s life were affected and travel alone does not negate an effect—triable issue remains |
| Whether causation could be adjudicated at summary disposition (and whether Asker proved causation) | Asker pointed to contemporaneous ER visit, consistent records, and subsequent imaging linking symptoms to the accident | Defendants did not contest causation in their motion and offered no alternate cause; trial court raised causation sua sponte | Held: trial court erred to decide causation sua sponte without notice; on the merits causation is a factual issue and Asker presented sufficient facts to create a reasonable inference of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (sets three‑prong framework for "serious impairment of body function" inquiry)
- Chouman v. Home Owners Ins. Co., 293 Mich App 434 (2011) (discusses MRI utility and context for spine injuries)
- Shaw v. Martin, 155 Mich App 89 (1986) (recognizes back movement as an important body function)
- Craig ex rel. Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich 67 (2004) (standard for proving causation by reasonable inference)