Have you been injured? you may have a case. GET A FREE CONSULTATION

No-Fault Lawyer: Serious impairment not serious enough if Jones v. Olson is reversed

December 17, 2007 by Steven M. Gursten

Steve Gursten writes letter to Michigan Lawyers Weekly editor on Michigan Supreme Court case that could further ravage the rights of auto accident victims

No-fault lawyer Steven M. Gursten writes Michigan Lawyers Weekly on Jones v. Olson, a Michigan Supreme Court case that had many lawyers predicting an end for all but the most catastrophic car accident injury cases in the state.

Gursten said if Jones is reversed, the Court’s majority would be telling lawyers and judges that six months of pain and disability following a car accident in Michigan is no longer good enough to pursue third-party auto accident cases.

Here’s the Michigan Lawyers Weekly story: Serious impairment not serious enough if Jones v. Olson is reversed

Update: The Michigan Supreme Court on August 1, 2010 overturned the state’s strict auto injury threshold law Kreiner v. Fischer and it’s interpretation of “serious impairment of body function” with McCormick v. Carrier, restoring the rights of car accident victims in the state. Now, when personal injury victims are pursuing pain and suffering damages, they have to prove their life has been affected – not completely altered as was required under Kreiner.

Related information:

Jones v. Olson Michigan Supreme Court oral arguments

Michigan No-Fault insurance resource center

[Community Guidelines]

Related Posts
Attorney Kevin Seiferheld speaks on Advanced Trial Advocacy at Michigan Association for Justice seminar
May 17, 2019
Attorney Brandon Hewitt talks about distracted driving with WZZM 13 Grand Rapids
May 13, 2019
Michigan Car Insurance Rates: Attorney Brandon Hewitt Talks About The Non-Driving Factors Affecting Them
May 10, 2019
Share
Tweet
Share
Pin
Email