Sarah Sanders v. Allstate Insurance Company
331946
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Motor-vehicle collision on Feb 13, 2013; Sarah Sanders (plaintiff) and spouse sued driver Collin English and vehicle owner FCH Enterprises for noneconomic loss under Michigan’s no-fault tort threshold statute.
- Sarah had a documented preexisting L5–S1 herniated disc and was scheduled for lumbar surgery before the accident; she underwent a second lumbar surgery shortly after the accident.
- Plaintiffs alleged the accident caused new neck and arm pain and cognitive/memory impairment (closed-head injury/post-concussion symptoms); defendants challenged causation and objective evidence of a threshold injury.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) arguing plaintiffs lacked objective medical evidence that the accident caused any new impairment meeting the no-fault “serious impairment of body function” standard (MCL 500.3135).
- Trial court found factual disputes about injury extent but held those disputes were not material and, as a matter of law, plaintiffs failed to show an objectively manifested impairment caused by the accident; summary disposition granted and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs produced objective evidence that the accident caused new neck/arm impairment meeting the no-fault threshold | Sanders: new neck/arm pain began after the accident and impaired life activities | Defendants: no medical diagnosis, imaging, EMG or exam findings showing accident-caused cervical injury; symptoms attributable to preexisting lumbar condition | Held: No — plaintiffs failed to show an objectively manifested, accident-caused impairment of an important body function; summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of a closed-head injury amounting to a “serious neurological injury” under MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii) | Sanders: neuropsychologist’s report and treating records indicate post-concussive symptoms and cognitive complaints | Defendants: no sworn MD/DO who regularly treats closed-head injuries testified that a serious neurological injury may exist; evidence speculative | Held: No — evidence (including neuropsychologist report and hospital notes) did not satisfy statutory requirement that an MD/DO testify under oath that a serious neurological injury may exist; Churchman governs |
| Whether the trial court could decide the threshold issue as a matter of law | Sanders: factual disputes about injury existence/extent preclude deciding threshold as a matter of law | Defendants: even if factual disputes exist, they are not material to threshold determination | Held: Court may decide as a matter of law where disputes are not material; here disputes were immaterial and threshold not met |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (defines statutory three-part test for "serious impairment of body function" and explains "objectively manifested" requirement)
- Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (interprets §3135(2)(a)(ii) requirement that an MD/DO testify that plaintiff may have sustained a serious neurological injury)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (standard for reviewing motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party on C(10) motion)
- West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (when summary disposition is proper)
- Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich 483 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (prior interpretation of "objectively manifested")
- DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (medical testimony required to establish physical basis for subjective complaints)