United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS= MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is presently before the Court on defendants motion for
summary judgment [docket entry 11]. Plaintiff has not
responded to this motion and the time for her to do so has
expired. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall
decide this motion without a hearing.
Plaintiff
alleges that she was injured when defendant rear-ended her in
Genesee County in June 2014. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages which, under the Michigan No-Fault statute, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 500.3135(1), are awardable only if she
“has suffered death, serious impairment of body
function, or permanent serious disfigurement.”
Discovery having closed, defendants seek summary judgment on
the grounds that plaintiff cannot make this showing.
Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate “if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” “[T]he mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties
will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no
genuine dispute as to any material
fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in
original). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the opposing party, summary judgment may be granted only
if the evidence is so one-sided that a reasonable fact-finder
could not find for the opposing party. See
id. at 248-50; Street v. J.C. Bradford &
Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478-80 (6th Cir. 1989). In other
words, “[a] material issue of fact exists where a
reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, could return a verdict for
that party.” Vollrath v. Georgia-Pacific
Corp., 899 F.2d 533, 534 (6th Cir. 1990). “The
pivotal question is whether the party bearing the burden of
proof has presented a jury question as to each element of its
case.” Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th
Cir. 1996).
In the
present case, plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged
“serious impairment of body function, ” not death
or disfigurement Compl. & 5. This Court recently
summarized the legal standards applicable to such a claim as
follows:
A “serious impairment of body function” means
“an objectively manifested impairment of an important
body function that affects the person's general ability
to lead his or her normal life.” § 500.3135(5);
McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180, 795 N.W.2d 517,
524 (2010). The Michigan Supreme Court has explained that, as
a threshold matter:
[t]he court should determine whether there is a factual
dispute regarding the nature and extent of the person's
injuries, and, if so, whether the dispute is material to
determining whether the serious impairment of body function
threshold is met. If there is no factual dispute, or no
material factual dispute, then whether the threshold is met
is a question of law for the court.
Id. at 537 (citation omitted). To demonstrate a
“serious impairment of body function”, a
plaintiff must show: A(1) an objectively manifested
impairment (2) of an impairment body function that (3)
affects the person's general ability to lead his or her
normal life.@ Id.
* * *
Under the first prong of McCormick, Garcia must show
that the injuries resulting from the accident were
“evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions that
someone other than the injured person would observe or
perceive as impairing a body function.” Id. at
527. In other words, Garcia must, at a minimum, demonstrate a
causal relationship between his injury and the accident.
See Mehdi v. Gardner, No. 319630, 2015 WL 1227710,
at *2 (Mich.Ct.App. March 17, 2015). In McCormick,
for example, “the plaintiff established an objectively
manifested impairment where he suffered a broken ankle as a
result of a vehicle accident, had difficulty walking ... and
had continuing pain and a limited range of ankle motion even
14 months after the injury.” Id. By contrast,
in Mehdi, “[a]lthough MRIs and a nerve
conduction study performed after the accident revealed
medical abnormalities in plaintiff's nerves and a bulging
spinal disc, which account[ed] for plaintiff's complaints
of continuing pain, plaintiff presented no evidence linking
his conditions to the vehicle accident.” Id.
Lopez-Garcia v. United States, 207 F.Supp.3d 753,
758B59 (E.D. Mich. 2016).
Defendants
argue that plaintiff's claim fails because she cannot
establish a causal connecti the accident and her alleged
injury. Defendants point to MRIs taken one month after the
accident s noticeable injuries in plaintiff's lumbar,
thoracic, or cervical spine. While plaintiff complained of
bac underwent physical therapy and chiropractic care, she has
no evidence of causation. Because plaintiff h respond to
defendants= motion, plaintiff's lack of evidence of
causation is Aundisputed for purposes of t Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(e)(2). Under these circumstances, Athere is ...