THE COURT FINDS NO SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION FOR A SPRAINED ANKLE

Kelsey M. Hall

In a recent unpublished Court of Appeals decision, Dean v Stallworth-Hunter, Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an automobile accident that occurred on October 6, 2020. Following the accident, Plaintiff went to the hospital and was diagnosed with an acute right ankle sprain. Plaintiff then took part in follow-up medical visits over the next several months, reporting diminishing pain which eventually disappeared. An MRI of Plaintiff’s ankle could not be interpreted by the doctor who speculated there might be a ligament tear.

On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant alleging that he suffered an “objectively manifested” impairment of “an important body function” which affected his ability to lead his normal life, as contemplated by MCL 500.3135(5), due to Defendant’s negligence. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition which was granted by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court found Plaintiff’s complaints of pain were insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold of a serious impairment, and that there was no evidence of medical limitation on Plaintiff’s activities as a result of an injury. An appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals noted that under the No-Fault Act, a person will remain subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by an automobile accident if the injured person has suffered serious impairment of body function. MCL 500.3135(1). According to MCL 500.3135(5), courts must employ a three-part test to decide whether an injured person has suffered a “serious impairment of body function.” First, an injured person must establish that the impairment is “objectively manifested.” Subjective complaints of pain are insufficient. McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 198; 795 NW2d 517 (2010). Second, the impairment of the body function must be of great value, significance, or consequence to the injured person. MCL 500.3135(5)(b). Third, the court should determine on a case-by-case basis if the injured person’s ability to lead his normal life was impaired. MCL 500.3135(5)(c). The Court of Appeals only focused on elements one and three, as the Circuit Court had.

Regarding the first element, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff’s complaints were merely subjective. Medical records pointed to the fact that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain continually diminished over the months following the accident, and the pain was gone by the time of Plaintiff’s deposition. Moreover, there was no objective evidence of any impairment because Plaintiff presented no evidence of a medical limitation on his activities. The record revealed that Plaintiff may have suffered a sprained ankle but it did not impair his ability to walk on the date of the accident, or after. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s minor weight gain over five months was insufficient to satisfy the threshold. As a result, the Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.