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 This is exemplified in O’Keefe v. Auto Club, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals win for an auto accident victim who sustained neck and back injuries.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. 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:

I’ve received a heartfelt response to my recent blog, Michigan’s Auto Accident Law Protects Drunk Drivers, Not Accident Victims, from the mother of the actual car accident victim in the Michigan Court of  Appeals case Wayne Cottrill v. Craig Kenneth Senter (No. 285216).

In Cottrill v. Senter, a drunk driver with a .30 blood alcohol level slammed head-on into a car carrying an 11-year-old boy named Anthony. Anthony sustained multiple personal injuries, including fractures to his foot, wrist, hand and ribs. He missed months from school and had to drop out of the many activities he participated in before the car crash, like football. But thanks to Michigan’s car accident law Kreiner v. Fischer, Senter didn’t face any civil consequences for his actions. Unfortunately, as a personal injury lawyer, I’ve seen many legitimate auto accident cases thrown out of court because of Kreiner. Meanwhile, many honest accident victims continue to suffer.

A drunk driver with a .30 blood alcohol level slams head-on into the oncoming car of an 11-year-old boy.  The drunk driver walks away. The boy, Anthony, doesn’t walk away at all.  Anthony isn’t able to walk again for at least another month after the car accident, due to multiple fractures to his foot, wrist, hand and ribs. He also loses consciousness and requires in-home nursing care while recovering from his injuries. He misses two more months from school, and has to drop out of the many activities he participated in before the car crash, such as playing on the football team.

A Flow Chart Guide to Michigan’s Car Accident Threshold Law

Last week, when I blogged about the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2004 Kreiner v. Fischer decision — the case that has ravaged the rights of car accident and truck accident victims in Michigan — I received a request asking if I could specifically explain Kreiner, which sets forth Michigan’s auto accident threshold law. Here’s a flow chart I use when leading seminars for Michigan lawyers on the state’s automobile accident threshold law, and when teaching the third-party no-fault class at Cooley Law School every year with Professor Borin. You can click on it to view an enlarged version.

On Tuesday, I posted an open letter that my Michigan Auto Law partner Bobby Raitt wrote last year, during his presidency of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association. Bob asked his fellow Michigan personal injury lawyers whether they can “stand the rain”— the “rain” being the dismal state of consumer rights and personal injury law in Michigan following years of the Engler-appointed “Majority of Four” Court’s dismantling of safeguards, precedent and binding stare decisis designed to protect people. These arch-conservative, activist justices have especially wreaked havoc on victims of car accidents and truck accidents in Michigan with the Kreiner v. Fischer decision.

The state of personal injury law in Michigan is bleak following years of intentional dismantling by the Engler-appointed “Majority of Four” Michigan Supreme Court justices who wreaked havoc on victims of automobile accidents, slip and falls, inadequate security, product liability and medical malpractice laws. In fact, Michigan has the most draconian personal injury laws in the entire country, yet promised drops in insurance rates have never arrived. Meanwhile, Michigan’s auto insurance companies lead the nation in profitability, reaping the rewards of fewer payouts and very little regulation and oversight by the state. Our current laws read like a bizarre work of fiction by Kafka or Orwell, but Michigan residents who are blind (Sidorowicz v. Chicken Shack), disabled (Griffith v. State Farm Insurance), severely injured (Roberts v. Mecosta General Hospital) and raped (Zsigo v. Hurley Medical Center) have had cases thrown out of the courts; as the old extreme four-justice majority has changed long-standing precedent and stare decisis in case after case (Read my previous blog for about more unbelievable Supreme Court judicial travesties).

Today, President Barack Obama made history when he was inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. The irony is that Americans would likely not be swearing in our first African American president if George W. Bush’s presidency hadn’t been such a disaster. This thought brings me to the Michigan Association for Justice (formerly Michigan Trial Lawyers Association) seminar last week. As part of the seminar, top Michigan car accident lawyers put together an excellent motion and brief for plaintiff lawyers facing Kreiner defense motions to dismiss cases under serious impairment. I cannot help thinking that if we had compiled this motion and brief soon after the Michigan Supreme Court released Kreiner v. Fischer in 2004, perhaps we would have a very different body of case law today. Additionally, fewer accident victims might have had their cases dismissed throughout the lingering past four years.