Court Opinion

ID: 9534981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:18.790276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:08.911531
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring in the result.
The applicable statute requires Musa to show that the accident resulted in a “substantial and medically demonstrable permanent impairment” which significantly affected his ability to perform his “professional activities or [Ms] usual and customary daily activities.” D.C.Code § 35 — 2105(b)(1) (1993) (emphasis added). If each word and phrase is given independent significance, the “usual and customary” activities need not be of a professional nature. Thus, if Musa customarily goes for a daily walk, then the statute appears by its terms to apply. Given the foregoing, I am not persuaded that our statute is significantly narrower than New York’s or Michigan’s, cf. maj. op. at 1003-04, for a showing of impairment of professional activities is not required in the District either.
I nevertheless vote to affirm for a slightly different reason. I am not sure what a 2% injury to the whole person is, see maj. op. at 1001 n. 2, but I think I know what it isn’t. It is not the kind of “substantial and medically demonstrable permanent impairment” which would allow Musa to recover.