COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF FUNCTION

Regina A. Berlin

In Williamson v Adams, (Unpub, COA No. 366453, 4/18/24), the Court of Appeals addressed a case involving a June 21, 2019 motor vehicle accident. The trial court found that Plaintiff did not suffer a threshold injury and granted summary disposition in favor of Defendant. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed its ruling.

As a result of the accident, Plaintiff claimed he suffered from anxiety and injured his left knee. He claimed his anxiety and knee injuries prevented him from doing landscaping work, plowing, and irrigation, and that he experienced anxiety while driving. However, he did not attend counseling for his anxiety and refused medication. Plaintiff testified that he not exactly sure which leg he injured but thought it was his left knee, and that his knee was sprained. At the scene, Plaintiff was able to ambulate without a problem, receiving no real treatment at the emergency room. He complained of continued and increasing knee pain following the accident.  He also complained about injuries to his right knee, left chest wall, left wrist, left hand, and fingers, but could not provide any specifics regarding those injuries.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion provided a thorough analysis of the facts at issue in this case, noting specifically the lack of objective proof which substantiated or corroborated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and allegations. The Court noted Plaintiff relied on a two-page independent medical exam (IME) report and found that the reporting doctor did not make independent, objective observations. Rather, the doctor merely repeated what Plaintiff told him. The Court found the doctor’s statements regarding Plaintiff’s claimed anxiety were outside the scope of the doctor’s practice and again merely repeated Plaintiff’s claims providing no “objective observations that buttress the plaintiff’s subjective complaints.”

The Court further found no impairment of an important body function, noting only subjective, self-reported instances where Plaintiff’s ability to walk was compromised. The IME doctor’s reports contradicted Plaintiff’s claims finding Plaintiff had a normal gait, a normal neurological exam, and could walk without major problems. Plaintiff reported debilitating anxiety, but there was no objective evidence to support this.

Finally, the Court found Plaintiff’s alleged impairment did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff claimed that his ability to work in landscaping was diminished but suffered a post-accident hernia while doing landscaping work. Further, there were no physician-imposed restrictions other than occasionally sitting instead of standing. The Court noted Plaintiff chose not to participate in certain activities, but failed to provide any medical evidence that he could not participate in those activities. As a result, the Court affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.