Michigan Car Accident Victim With Fractured Ankle Has Case Dismissed
Under the Michigan No-Fault, law a person cannot sue a negligent driver for non-economic damages (pain and suffering etc.) unless his or her injury results in: (1) serious impairment of body function; (2) death; or (3) permanent serious disfigurement. MCL 500.3135. In recent years, Michigan car accident victims have had their cases dismissed due in large part to the Michigan Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the “serious impairment” element in this statute in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004). These cases have become known as “Kreiner Casualties” because many people with very serious injuries, (e.g. broken bones requiring surgery), have had their cases dismissed before they even get to a jury.
In McCormick v. Carrier, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided March 25, 2008 [Docket No. 275888], the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld yet another dismissal of an injured person’s case involving a serious ankle fracture injury caused by a co-worker who backed a truck over Mr. McCormick’s ankle at work.
In that case, Mr. McCormick underwent two surgeries and was completely disabled from returning to work for one year. In addition, the evidence showed that his work played a very large role in his life, and he is “at another duty” because his employer did not consider him capable of performing his prior duties. In addition, his doctor and an independent doctor both found some indication of arthritis in his ankle as a result of his injury. Mr. McCormick testified that after being disabled for a year his life is “painful, but normal.” The Court acknowledged “that painful injuries, such as that sustained by plaintiff in the present case, do not generally disappear over time or necessarily improve with age.” However, despite these facts, the Court held in a non-unanimous decision ( Judge Davis dissenting) that Mr. McCormick’s injuries did not affect his “ability to lead his normal life.” which is part of the test under the “serious impairment of body function” threshold. In making this determination, the majority provided little analysis or reasoning for its holding. Unfortunately, Mr. McCormick’s case is only one in a long line of cases where injured people with serious injuries have been denied their day in court because of the Kreiner decision. However, based upon my review of the case law, until this decision there has never been an appellate decision (published or unpublished) where the Court has held that Plaintiff who had been disabled from work for a year does not qualify under the serious impairment threshold. In addition, this case seems to conflict with published case law that which holds that under the Kreiner test, an impairment need not permanent in order to qualify as a serious impairment of body function. Thus, the decision was a significant departure from decisions of previous Courts. In this regard, Judge Davis’ well written dissent illustrates the flaws in the majority’s decision.
Related posts:
- Michigan Car Accident Back Injury Victim’s Case Dismissed
- Michigan Car Accident Victim With Shoulder Injury Has Case Reinstated
- Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Michigan Soldier Injured In Car Accident
- Michigan Uninsured Motorists Benefits: Michigan Car Accident Lawyers
- Michigan Car Accident Injury: Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Categories: Car accidents, Types of Injury Cases, Uncategorized | | Permalink | Trackback |
Print This Post
|
Email This Post
