Court Opinion

ID: 9729737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:47:52.460668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.906201
License: Public Domain

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.