RUBY MOORE V JAMIE PHILLIP CLOUS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RUBY MOORE,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 226289
Wexford Circuit Court
LC No. 98-014135-NI
JAMIE PHILLIP CLOUS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and Gotham*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
On March 7, 1996, the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding was struck by a vehicle
driven by defendant. Plaintiff saw her family physician the day after the accident. X-rays
revealed no objective evidence of an injury caused by the accident but showed evidence of
degenerative disc disease that had been detected as early as 1984. Electrodiagnostic tests
conducted on March 11, 1996 revealed that plaintiff’s condition had not changed since 1993.
Throughout 1996 and 1997, plaintiff consulted her family physician, a neurosurgeon, and a pain
management clinic. She complained of pain in her lower back and extremities. Various tests
were conducted, and the results showed that plaintiff’s condition had not worsened since the
accident.
Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the injuries she sustained in the accident constituted a
serious impairment of body function. Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to
MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that the evidence did not demonstrate that plaintiff sustained an
objectively manifested impairment of an important body function as a result of the accident. The
trial court granted defendant’s motion. The trial court found the evidence showed that plaintiff
had three objectively manifested conditions, including lumbar radiculopathy, but no objective
medical evidence demonstrated that the lumbar radiculopathy resulted from the accident and was
proximately caused by the accident.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
A serious impairment of body function is “an objectively manifested impairment of an
important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.”
MCL 500.3135(7). Whether a person has suffered a serious impairment of body function is a
question of law for the court if there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the
injuries, or if there is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the injuries but the
dispute is not material to whether the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body
function. MCL 500.3135(2)(a).1 In determining whether the impairment of the important body
function is serious, the court should consider factors such as the extent of the injury, the
treatment required, the duration of the disability, and the extent of residual impairment and
prognosis for eventual recovery. Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 341; 612 NW2d
838 (2000).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We disagree and affirm. The presence of an objectively manifested injury is not
sufficient, in and of itself, to submit a case to a jury. A claimant must make a prima facie
showing that as a result of the defendant’s negligence, he or she sustained an objectively
manifested injury that resulted in the serious impairment of an important body function. MCL
500.3135(7).
The undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff had an extensive history of neck and back
problems that preceded the accident by more than ten years. These problems included lumbar
radiculopathy, of which plaintiff continued to complain after the accident. No objective medical
tests demonstrated that plaintiff’s condition worsened after the accident. Rather, these tests
showed that plaintiff’s condition was virtually unchanged after the accident. The evidence
showed that plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life, i.e., her life as it was before the
accident, was not significantly altered by the injury. Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 249250; 631 NW2d 760 (2001). Plaintiff failed to meet the threshold requirements of MCL
500.3135. The trial court correctly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Roy D. Gotham
1
The amended version of MCL 500.3135 became effective March 28, 1996 but applies to this
case because the instant complaint was filed more than 120 days after the effective date of the
amended statute. MCL 500.3135(2).
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.