Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


LINDA S. AMOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v KELLER TRANSFER LINE, INC., and JOHN LUCAS, Defendants, and RTI TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2005

No. 254232 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 02-200555-NI

Before: Saad, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. RTI Transport, Inc. ("RTI"), appeals as of right an order of judgment in favor of Linda S. Amos ("Amos"), following a jury trial, in this third-party auto negligence case. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. I. Directed Verdict For its first issue on appeal, RTI contends that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict because Amos' claims were insufficient to establish a serious impairment of body function or an objective manifestation of a medically identifiable injury. We disagree. We review de novo the grant or denial of a motion for directed verdict. Smith v Jones, 246 Mich App 270, 273; 632 NW2d 509 (2001). The evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether factual questions existed over which reasonable minds could differ. Meagher v Wayne State University, 222 Mich App 700, 708; 565 NW2d 401 (1997). With reference to RTI's assertion that Amos' injuries are not sufficient to meet the threshold requirements as defined by MCL 500.3135(7), questions of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Sweatt v Dep't of Corrections, 468 Mich 172, 177; 661 NW2d 201 (2003).

-1-


RTI asserts that Amos' subjective complaints of headache, tinnitus and dizziness are insufficient to establish that her claimed impairment is "objectively manifested," as required by MCL 500.3135(7),1 because they do not comprise a "medically identifiable injury or condition that has a physical basis." Jackson v Nelson, 252 Mich App 643, 653; 654 NW2d 604 (2002), quoting SJI2d 36.11. RTI's argument that it was for the court and not the jury to determine if Amos' complaints met the threshold for a serious impairment of body function is without merit. MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i) and (ii) are clear that the court determines this issue, as a matter of law, only when "there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries." MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i). In this instance, the "nature and extent" of Amos' injuries was highly contested, with RTI asserting that Amos did not incur a closed-head injury and that, even if she did, the resultant condition did not sufficiently impact her ability to lead her "normal life." Furthermore, in cases involving the assertion of a closed-head injury, a question of fact for the jury's determination is created if a physician, "who regularly diagnoses or treats closed-head injuries" provides sworn testimony that "there may be a serious neurological injury." MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii). Gerald F. Robbins, D.O., Amos' treating neurologist, stated, under oath, that Amos had "sustained a serious neurologic injury."2 As such, the trial court did not err in

MCL 500.3135(7) states, "As used in this section, `serious impairment of body function' means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life." Robbins' videotaped deposition was played before the jury. In that deposition, the following exchange occurred: Q. Okay. Can I ask your opinion then, Doctor, with respect to whether Linda Amos

Download LINDA S AMOS V KELLER TRANSFER LINE INC.pdf

Michigan Law