DAISY MCKINNIE V KEITH ROBERTS RAVEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAISY MCKINNIE,
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V
No. 241842
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 00-004251-NI
KEITH ROBERT RAVEL and
ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOSEPH STABILE,1
Defendant.
Before: Neff, P.J. and Wilder and Kelly, JJ.
Neff, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would reverse and remand this matter for trial.
As the majority correctly points out, there is no dispute that plaintiff suffered an
objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. The question on appeal is
whether the consequences of plaintiff’s injury affected her general ability to lead a normal life.
The majority opinion narrows the inquiry further, acknowledging that plaintiff
“undeniably presented evidence that her injuries and resulting pain have had some effect on her
life.” Ante at 6. While noting that a serious effect is not required, the majority seems to
conclude that the burden to show an effect above the threshold of any effect has not been met.
These standards, serious effect and any effect, are vague, to say the least, Kreiner v Fischer, 471
Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004), notwithstanding. However, vagueness aside, I believe that the
record supports the conclusion that plaintiff has clearly shown that the consequences of the
injury entitle her to a jury determination of damages for serious impairment of an important body
function which has affected her general ability to lead a normal life.
1
See majority opinion ante at 1 n 1.
-1-
Medical Evidence
Treating physicians describe plaintiff’s injury as a permanent injury of a vital body
function and in the serious category of injuries of this type. Further, Dr. Klein observed that, “It
[plaintiff’s injury] affects much of what should be normal daily activities.” On neurological
examination, the following was noted:
IMPRESSION:
1. Closed head injury with possible whiplash neck injury with residual left
paresthesia and mild left hyperreflexia raising suspicions of possible
intracranial focal pathology or upper cervical myelopathy.
2. Residual musculoskeletal pain with left wrist severe tendinitis. (Emphasis
added.)
3. Chronic headaches in relation to the head injury.
Ability to Lead a Normal Life
Plaintiff has worked as a waitress and hostess to contribute to the support of her family.
It hardly seems questionable that the injury as described in the medical reports would impact her
ability to work at those jobs that were a financially important part of her normal life. The ability
to work at one’s usual occupation is a part of the general ability to lead a normal life. I
acknowledge the majority’s cite to Kreiner at n 17 for the proposition that self-imposed
restrictions do not establish residual impairment. However, in light of the medical reports in this
case, I cannot conclude that plaintiff’s inability to work is self-imposed or unsupported by the
objective evidence. Moreover, Kreiner nowhere requires physician-imposed restrictions for a
finding of impairment.
Plaintiff is the mother of three young children. It is difficult to imagine that her general
ability to lead a normal life as a mother of three young children would not be seriously affected
by the injury and the consequential pain and disability she has experienced and plaintiff’s
deposition testimony supports that conclusion. To conclude otherwise trivializes her role as a
wife and mother.
On the record before us, I conclude that a finding that plaintiff has not demonstrated that
her general ability to lead a normal life is affected is clear error and summary disposition for
defendants should be reversed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
-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.