Rear-End Collision and the Serious Impairment Threshold
On March 4, 2024, Dana, a 44-year-old warehouse team lead, was stopped at a red light on Fulton Street in Grand Rapids when an F-150 driven by Eric rear-ended her at about 25 mph. Eric admits he looked at his phone. Dana felt immediate neck pain; an MRI two weeks later shows a C5-C6 disc bulge with an annular tear and mild foraminal narrowing. Her physiatrist restricts her to lifting no more than 10 pounds and no overhead work for 12 weeks. She misses six weeks of work, returns light duty, and still cannot sleep through the night or drive more than 20 minutes without numbness in her right hand. Before the crash she had a 2018 whiplash injury that resolved after physical therapy, and a 2021 MRI showed mild degenerative disc disease. Eric's insurer paid Dana's medical bills and 85% of her wage loss. Dana's PIP insurer has denied the $2,400/month in attendant care her husband has provided since the crash. Eric's carrier disputes the tort threshold and has surveillance video of Dana carrying groceries.
1. Evaluate whether Dana can satisfy the no-fault serious-impairment threshold. Identify the evidence that helps her, the gaps the defense will exploit, and how the court should handle the threshold if the medical facts are disputed.
Read the worked answer
Start with MCL 500.3135: Dana may recover noneconomic damages only if she has death, a serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement. Under McCormick v Carrier, a serious impairment has three prongs: an objectively manifested impairment, of an important body function, that affects her general ability to lead a normal life. The MRI is objective, but the 2021 degenerative findings give the defense a causation argument. Dana needs her physiatrist to compare the pre- and post-crash imaging and explain how the annular tear and restriction are more than natural progression. The work restriction, six-week absence, sleep disruption, and limited driving are functional evidence. Under McCormick, she need not be disabled from all work; residual limitation can affect her general ability to lead a normal life. The grocery video is not dispositive: carrying groceries once does not prove she can perform overhead work or drive without numbness, and a jury may treat it as a credibility issue. If the medical facts are genuinely disputed, the court should submit the threshold to the jury; if not, the court decides as a matter of law. The claim is viable but needs a causation opinion, not just the MRI report.
2. Dana's PIP insurer has denied all attendant care. Analyze the claim under the post-2020 no-fault amendments, including the 56-hour cap, documentation, and whether a blanket denial is defensible.
Read the worked answer
The attendant-care denial should be analyzed under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) and the 2020 amendments. Attendant care is an allowable expense if reasonably necessary and causally related to the accident. For policies subject to the amendments, MCL 500.3107b limits in-home attendant care to 56 hours per week unless a statutory exception applies, such as care provided in a hospital or facility or by a qualifying provider. The insurer cannot simply deny all care; it must pay for covered hours that are reasonable and necessary. The husband's $2,400/month figure needs an hours-and-rate breakdown, a physician's prescription or care plan, and daily logs. If the claim is eight hours per day, it exceeds the weekly cap, so the insurer may limit payment to 56 hours per week; the plaintiff should not concede the entire denial. Family-provided care is generally reimbursable at a reasonable rate, but the fee schedule and policy selections may affect the rate. The denial letter should be reviewed for the policy year and any Medicare or Medicaid opt-out. The practical answer: demand payment of the capped, documented hours and reserve the right to argue any exception; do not accept a blanket denial.
3. If the jury finds Dana 10% at fault because she carried groceries despite her lifting restriction, how does MCL 600.2959 affect her tort recovery and her PIP claim? What if the jury instead finds her 55% at fault?
Read the worked answer
Comparative fault is governed by MCL 600.2959. If a jury finds Dana 10% at fault for, say, lifting groceries against her restriction and the defendant 90%, her noneconomic and excess economic damages are reduced by 10%; she is not barred because her fault is not greater than the aggregate fault of the other persons. The grocery video alone does not establish fault; it shows activity, and the defense must tie it to a breach of a medical instruction or a failure to mitigate. PIP benefits are not fault-based, so the attendant-care claim is not reduced by comparative fault. If the jury found Dana 55% at fault and Eric 45%, her tort recovery would be barred under the modified comparative-fault statute, but her PIP claim would continue. The surveillance should be countered with the full activity log and the physiatrist's explanation that a single episode of carrying groceries does not equal an ability to work overhead or drive without symptoms. The defense may also argue failure to mitigate; that is a damage reduction issue, not a threshold bar.