# Churchman v. Richerson

> Michigan Court of Appeals · June 2, 2000 · 240 Mich. App. 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729737

## Case

- **Full name:** Churchman v. Rickerson
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 2, 2000
- **Citations:** 240 Mich. App. 223; 611 N.W.2d 333
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cavanagh
- **Judges:** Collins, Sawyer, Cavanagh
- **Cited by:** 77 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729737

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729737. Public record. Not legal advice.