EDWIN WILLIAMS V ROBERT JOHN MEDUKAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
EDWIN WILLIAMS and SANDY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
FOR PUBLICATION
May 24, 2005
9:15 a.m.
No. 260375
Montcalm Circuit Court
LC No. 04-002598-NI
ROBERT JOHN MEDUKAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Official Reported Version
Before: Murphy, P.J., and White and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for
summary disposition. We reverse and remand. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Edwin Williams was involved in a motor vehicle accident with defendant. X-rays
revealed that Williams sustained a fractured right shoulder and a fractured left hand. An
orthopedic surgeon placed Williams' left arm in a cast and immobilized his right arm with a
double sling. For one month following the accident Williams' arms were immobilized, and his
wife was required to assist him with his needs, including dressing, eating, and performing
hygiene functions. Thereafter, Williams could feed himself and attend to his basic hygiene
needs. Approximately six weeks after the accident, the surgeon removed the immobilizer sling
from Williams' right shoulder. Approximately three months after the accident, Williams
returned to unrestricted work as a salesman. He also resumed coaching a middle school girls
basketball team.
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the injuries Williams 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 Williams' injuries did not meet the threshold definition of a
serious impairment of body function. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that an
impairment lasting no more than three months did not meet the threshold definition of a serious
impairment of body function.
This Court reviews de novo the grant or denial of summary disposition to determine if the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118;
597 NW2d 817 (1999).
-1-
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the
complaint. In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this
subsection, a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions,
and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion. Where the proffered evidence fails to
establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. [Id. at 120.]
"A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her
ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death,
serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement." MCL 500.3135(1).
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).
Determining whether a person is generally able to lead his or her normal life requires
considering whether the objectively manifested impairment has affected the course of the
person's life. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 130-131; 683 NW2d 611 (2004). The court
must examine how, to what extent, and for how long the plaintiff's life has been affected by the
impairment. Id. at 131. "Specific activities should be examined with an understanding that not
all activities have the same significance in a person's overall life." Id. The court must examine
the plaintiff's life before and after the accident, and consider the significance of the affected
aspects on the course of the plaintiff's life. In order to determine whether the plaintiff's general
ability to lead his or her normal life has been affected by the objective impairment, the court may
consider factors such as the nature and extent of the impairment, the type and length of treatment
required, the duration of the impairment, the extent of any residual impairment, and the
prognosis for eventual recovery. Id. at 132-134. An injury need not be permanent in order to be
serious. Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 341; 612 NW2d 838 (2000). Furthermore,
an impairment of short duration may constitute a serious impairment of body function if its effect
on the plaintiff's life is extensive. Kreiner, supra at 134.
Here, Williams' injuries were objectively manifested by x-rays. His arms were rendered
virtually useless for one month following the accident, and he was unable to feed himself or
otherwise attend to his basic needs. Some three months after the accident, Williams returned to
work and to his position as a coach for a middle school girls basketball team. Although Williams
was able to return to these positions, he could no longer engage in activities that required him to
lift his right arm above his head. Because of this, he could not demonstrate to his students how
to shoot basketball. In addition, Williams testified at his deposition that before the accident he
had played golf two or three times a week. After the accident, Williams could no longer play
golf or engage in activities with his grandchildren, such as playing catch. Although no evidence
showed that Williams' physician restricted him from engaging in various recreational activities,
and although self-imposed restrictions will not establish a residual impairment, see Kreiner,
supra at 133 n 17, Williams' physician did indicate that Williams lacked full range of motion in
-2-
his left wrist and that his right shoulder was healing in such a way that its range of motion would
be permanently limited. While these limitations might not rise to the level of a serious
impairment of body function for some people, in a person who regularly participates in sporting
activities that require a full range of motion, these impairments may rise to the level of a serious
impairment of a body function. See Kreiner, supra at 134 n 19. Given Williams' participation in
teaching basketball and his love of golf, which he can no longer pursue, we must conclude that
the limitations imposed by Williams' injuries affect his general ability to lead his normal life.
Consequently, as a matter of law, Williams' injuries constitute a serious impairment of body
function and the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition for defendant. MCL
500.3135(2)(a).1
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
1
Defendant did not contest the nature and extent of Williams' injuries, but rather based his
motion solely on whether the injuries identified by Williams met the threshold set by MCL
500.3135(1) and MCL 500.3135(7).
-3-
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.