noting that “a trial court cannot determine whether a plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function and enter judgment in favor of a defendant as a matter of law without first making the factual findings required under subsections 3135(2)(a)(i) or (ii)”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “a trial court cannot determine whether a plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function and enter judgment in favor of a defendant as a matter of law without first making the factual findings required under subsections 3135(2)(a)(i) or (ii)”
- “Traumatic brain injury may be classified as mild, moderate, or severe.”
- “However, we can find no abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion for reconsideration that rests on testimony that could have been presented the first time the issue was argued.”
- “[W]e can find no abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion for reconsideration that rests on testimony that could have been presented the first time the issue was argued.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cavanagh, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part'). Pursuant to May v Sommerfield, 239 Mich App 197, 202 ; 607 NW2d 422 (1999), remand for further findings is appropriate, and I therefore concur with the result reached by the majority. I write separately, however, because I believe that Dr. Lemer’s affidavit was sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement of the closed-head injury provision of § 3135.
Pursuant to MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii); MSA 24.13135(2)(a)(ii), a question of fact for the jury is created if a physician who regularly diagnoses or treats closed-head injuries testifies that there may be a “serious neurological injury.” The term “neurological” refers to the nervous system. See Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997), p 880 (defining “neurology”). In vertebrates, including humans, the “nervous system” includes the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and ganglia. Id. at 878.
Dr. Lemer testified that plaintiff sustained a “traumatic brain injury.” I believe that this language satisfies the requirements of MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii); MSA 24.13135(2)(a)(ii). The word “traumatic” is commonly understood to be synonymous with the word “serious.” Consequently, I believe that plaintiff has sustained her burden of demonstrating a serious impairment of bodily function or permanent serious disfigurement.