Serious impairment: a new low

      The rights of accident victims struck a new low in Michigan with the Court of Appeals' unpublished November 15, 2007, decision in Jones v. Jones, et al.  The Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of an auto negligence claim relying on the Kreiner Supreme Court decision requiring a "serious injury" to have "life-altering" consequences.  Under the no fault act, an injured person can only sue the at-fault driver if the injured person has a threshold injury (i.e., death, permanent serious disfigurement or a "serious impairment of a bodily function).  In 2005, the Engler majority on the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted "serious impairment" to require a "life-altering" impact.

          Controlled by this interpretation, the Court of Appeals in Jones held that the injured victim didn't have a "serious" injury, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE SUFFERED A FRACTURED BONE IN HER LEG THAT REQUIRED SURGERY AND INSERTION OF A ROD AND SCREWS TO MEND.  The woman required in-home health care for "several months" after discharge from the hospital, had to use a wheelchair or walker when she left home during that period, and required assistance with her activities of daily living.   She claimed she was left with a permanent limp and the need to use a cane for support.  She was unable to stand for extended periods or to walk any significant distance. 

        The Court relied heavily on the fact that Ms. Jones had not worked for three years prior to this injury and that "minor problems with walking or standing" are not "serious".  It noted that her physician had neither diagnosed the limp nor prescribed the cane and that she could perform most household tasks.  Her life was "not so different" from before the injury and therefore did not meet the Kreiner standard of a "serious" injury.  We wonder if the Justices who redefined "serious" to exclude an injury of this nature would still argue it was not "serious" if it was inflicted on one of them or their family.  We seriously doubt it.