No-Fault insurance lawyer shares additional tips on what Michigan’s new auto accident law means for car accident victims and personal injury attorneys

This is part two on topics and ideas that I’ll be covering today and tomorrow at the No-Fault Institute Seminar for the Michigan Association for Justice in Southfield. Yesterday, I discussed the objective manifestation requirement and the need to change Michigan’s jury instruction, now that the definition of objective manifestation has been changed with McCormick v. Carrier.  I also discussed how personal injury attorneys would do well to still provide objective proof of physical injuries at trial, even if the legal requirement for doing so has changed after McCormick.

With new Michigan Supreme Court case McCormick v. Carrier, auto accident victims could have a second chance to bring pain and suffering lawsuits

If you are one of hundreds of Michigan residents who has been seriously hurt in a car accident that was not your fault, but you were still told you had “no case” by a Michigan lawyer because of the state’s difficult auto accident threshold law, your important legal rights have now been restored with the Michigan Supreme Court’s new auto law, McCormick v. Carrier.

Check out Michigan Auto Law’s video on why you may have a car accident case now:

Auto accident attorney interprets Michigan’s new auto law, which could give hundreds of car accident victims with serious personal injuries a second chance to have their pain and suffering cases heard in court

I’d like to share the exciting news.  Sometime between now and Sunday, the Michigan Supreme Court will release McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.).

McCormick is the case that Michigan auto accident victims, lawyers on both sides and almost all trial court judges have been hoping will finally reverse the shocking unfairness that has resulted under Kreiner v. Fischer.

Auto accident lawyers featured in the State Bar of Michigan Negligence Law Section Quarterly, contending why McCormick must bring common sense to Michigan’s auto law

David E. Christensen

The Spring 2010 State Bar of Michigan Negligence Law Section Quarterly was recently sent to several thousand negligence lawyers who represent plaintiffs and defendants in Michigan lawsuits. In it is an article by Michigan Auto Law attorneys David Christensen and Alison Tomak on the Flint auto accident case of McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.). Dave and Alison’s article also includes a brief summary of the arguments made in the Negligence Law Section’s own amicus brief filed in this case before the Michigan Supreme Court.

The long-awaited Michigan Supreme Court hearing on McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.) was Tuesday. McCormick is the Flint auto accident case that will hopefully change Michigan’s long-broken auto threshold law, Kreiner v. Fischer — and restore the rights of injured auto accident victims.

Kreiner is a 2004 Michigan Supreme Court decision that interpreted the no-fault act’s “serious impairment of body function” statute. It establishes the precondition plaintiffs must meet before they can sue for non-economic damages in such a way that many people who suffer serious injuries and who miss months from work, lose their right to bring car accident claims.

When Susan Al-Maliki was seriously injured in a rear-end car accident, she never thought it would be a Wayne County Circuit Court judge in Detroit who would pose the greatest obstacle to her pain and suffering claim reaching a jury.

Without warning – and without providing her an opportunity to respond – Judge Warfield Moore Jr. dismissed Ms. Al-Maliki’s auto-tort lawsuit for a reason that he alone chose to focus on.

Car Accident Lawyer Highlights Court Trend Requiring Permanent Injuries for Plaintiffs to Win

I’d like to remind my fellow car accident lawyers that judges in Michigan are forgetting injuries do not need to be permanent to be serious. This is exemplified in O’Keefe v. Auto Club, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals win for an auto accident victim who sustained neck and back injuries.

I make note of it because although the plaintiff wins, this case perpetuates the problem of seemingly requiring that an impairment is permanent in order for it to qualify as a serious impairment of body function. In O’Keefe, the fact that saves the day for the plaintiff’s claim is that her residual impairments “appear to be permanent.”

15 Months Off Work and Unable to Walk From Personal Injuries Is Not “Serious Enough”

If there’s one truth to emerge from the horrifically flawed Michigan Supreme Court ruling in Kreiner v. Fischer, a case that has doomed thousands of auto accident victims in Michigan, it is this:

The word “normal” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

At least not for innocent Michigan residents who have suffered serious personal injury from car accidents and must now follow Alice into Wonderland.  Linda Berishaj has had to learn that lesson the hard way.

Car Accident Lawyer Predicts Kreiner v. Fischer Change with McCormick v. Carrier - a Second Chance for Auto Accident Victims

Recently, I’ve been writing about McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.), the Michigan Supreme Court case that car accident attorneys and judges are hoping will finally reverse Kreiner v. Fischer. On Monday, Michigan Lawyers Weekly wrote a story on the possibilities McCormick could bring, and interviewed me as an expert. I believe if McCormick prevails, auto accident victims who have had their rights ravaged by Kriener for the past four years will finally have a chance.

Auto accident attorney reports four Michigan Supreme Court cases in abeyance pending McCormick v. Carrier

This week I wrote about McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp). the auto accident case that Michigan auto accident attorneys and judges are hoping will finally reverse Kreiner v. Fischer. On August 20, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration in McCormick as well as leave to appeal.

I would like to inform my fellow auto accident attorneys that there are four additional cases being held in abeyance: