Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


RYAN CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v WERNER W. LEHMANN and ANDREWS UNIVERSITY, Defendants-Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED September 20, 2005

No. 262502 Berrien Circuit Court LC No. 03-003378-NI

Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Murphy and Davis, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this action involving plaintiff's claim for noneconomic damages arising out of an accident in which plaintiff, while operating a motorcycle, was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Lehmann. Lehmann was employed by defendant Andrews University at the time of the accident, and the vehicle driven by Lehmann was owned by Andrews University. The accident occurred on the grounds of the campus. The trial court found as a matter of law that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function, thereby failing to establish the threshold requirement necessary to pursue noneconomic damages under MCL 500.3135. We affirm. I. Allegations On May 8, 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint against the two defendants, alleging that Lehmann, while driving a vehicle owned by Andrews University and during the course of his employment with Andrews, neglected to observe a stop sign and proceeded through an intersection where he struck plaintiff's motorcycle. The accident occurred on May 10, 2000, at which time plaintiff was a student at Andrews University. Plaintiff alleged that Lehmann was liable for the injuries incurred by plaintiff on the basis of negligent operation of a motor vehicle and that Andrews University was vicariously liable.1 Plaintiff asserted that he suffered serious

1

In Lehmann's response to plaintiff's request for admissions, Lehmann conceded that he failed to yield the right of way; however, he maintained that plaintiff was exceeding the speed limit at
(continued...)

-1-


impairment of body function, and more specifically, "acromioclavicular dislocation left shoulder, traumatic chestwall syndrome, bilateral traumatic patellar chondrosis, and multiple trauma[.]" Plaintiff sought economic and noneconomic damages. II. Motion for Summary Disposition and the Trial Court's Ruling On October 5, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that plaintiff did not have a legitimate claim for economic losses and that, with respect to noneconomic damages, he failed to establish a serious impairment of body function where the accident did not produce an "objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life." See MCL 500.3135(7). Defendants relied heavily on Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004), along with medical documentation and plaintiff's deposition testimony. This evidence will be explored later in this opinion as part of our analysis. Plaintiff responded to the motion, arguing that he suffered injuries to both knees, "an acromioclavicular dislocation of the left shoulder," and was suffering from traumatic chest-wall syndrome. On the issue of serious impairment, plaintiff attached only his personal affidavit in support of the response to defendant's motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff further argued that the knee injuries were the most serious of the injuries and that the knee injuries were comprised of two components, a torn meniscus and ACL laxity.2 Plaintiff maintained that he was an avid participant in snowboarding, mountain-biking, and rollerblading, all of which he had to give up entirely because of the injuries to his knees. He also asserted that the injuries affected his work in a bike shop by preventing him from reaching overhead and stooping on a regular basis, and he contends that the injuries prevented him from completing a college course and obtaining a degree in graphic design that would have gone along with his degree in architecture, thereby leaving him grossly underemployed and necessitating a delayed effort to obtain a graphic design degree. Plaintiff argued that he endured four years of physical therapy, consumed medication for pain, and that, ultimately, surgical intervention was required. However, ACL and meniscus problems continue, and they are permanent in nature. We shall discuss the specifics of plaintiff's affidavit below as part of our analysis. Defendants argued that long stretches of time had elapsed during which plaintiff failed to obtain medical assistance or treatment, although plaintiff had initially sought and received

(...continued)

the time of the crash. Issues concerning negligence are not the subject of this appeal.
2

Meniscus is "a wedge of cartilage between the articulating ends of the bones in certain joints." Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). ACL stands for "anterior cruciate ligament," which is defined as follows: "a cruciate ligament of each knee that is attached in front to the more medial aspect of the tibia, that passes upward, backward, and laterally through the middle of the knee crossing the posterior cruciate ligament to attach to the femur, that functions to prevent hyperextension of the knee and to keep the femur from sliding backward in relation to the tibia, and that is subject to sports injury especially by tearing[.]" Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2003).

-2-


treatment directly following and soon after the accident.3 ruled in relevant part:

The trial court, relying on Kreiner,

And in this situation the nature and extent of the impairment here are factors in the Court's judgment that in the absence of

Download RYAN CHAMBERS V WERNER W LEHMANN.pdf

Michigan Law