The law now allows more help when hurt in car crashes.

In light of McCormick, the court vacated the trial court's order granting defendants-Judy Lee Kowalesky and Frank Robert Kowalesky summary disposition in the plaintiff's action for no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3135 and remanded the case. Plaintiff sustained injuries when the vehicle he was driving collided with a vehicle driven by Frank and owned by Judy Lee. Plaintiff suffered a broken left foot in the accident. He sued, alleging that he sustained a serious impairment of body function as a result of the accident. He was off work for 90 days after the accident. His foot was in a cast for three to four weeks, and then in an orthopedic boot. He returned to custodial work without restrictions. "He worked 40 hours per week and was on his feet frequently, performing such tasks as setting up tables and chairs in conference rooms, performing maintenance work on kitchen equipment, installing new heating/air conditioning units, and carrying out woodworking projects. Plaintiff walked with a limp, but did not use a cane. His ankle was stiff and difficult to bend. He had a permanent numb feeling along his arch and toward the front of the bottom of his foot." The pain in his left foot was "always there," and on a scale of 1 to 10, began at 5 or 6 in the morning and went down to about 3 during the day. His treating physician imposed no restrictions on plaintiff's home or recreational activities. However, plaintiff began to develop a flat foot deformity in that the heal bone could not interact with the "posterior tibial tendon" to give arch to the foot. He also developed a "valgus deformity," which means the heal bone is "tipped out" of position and thus, prevented from moving and interacting with other tendons. "Plaintiff began to develop subtalar arthrosis, which is early arthritis caused by the dissolution of cartilage and has a high probability of becoming severe arthritis." Although it concluded that plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function, the trial court determined that he did not meet the threshold requirement for establishment of a serious impairment of an important body function set out in Kreiner. While plaintiff's appeal was pending in the court, the Supreme Court overruled Kreiner's interpretation of MCL 500.3135 in McCormick. The trial court's decision was based on case law that has been overruled.