Search Post
Categories
Recent Posts
- Giroux Pappas Celebrates 10th Anniversary with a Move to a New Office!
- Celebrating Our December Exceptional Educator: Becky Ansell
- Beth Iatrou Named Exceptional Educator for November by Giroux Pappas
- Two Michigan Hospitals Get Failing Grades for Patient Safety
- Alexis Andrews Sworn In as a Michigan Attorney
- Giroux Pappas Named to Best Law Firms® List for 2025
- Giroux Pappas a Repeat Finalist for BBB Torch Award
- Bob Giroux Recognized as a “Go To Lawyer” for Negligence Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly
- Brighton Pastor Hidden Camera Case: Justice for Victims
- Giroux Pappas Supports WXYZ’s “Give a Child a Book” Campaign By Matching Donations
- Michigan Supreme Court Protects Condo Owners’ Rights: Condo Associations Now Accountable for Injuries on Common Property
- Doctor Arrested in Shocking Sexual Abuse Case in Rochester Hills
- Giroux Pappas Honored in 2025 Best Lawyers in America®
- Two Kids One Adult Injured in Ann Arbor Car Accident
- What Are the Most Common Types of Medical Negligence in a Hospital in Michigan?
- Are Traffic Laws Tougher in Road Work Zones?
- Who’s at Fault in an Icy Road Accident?
- Two Dead in Oakland County Wrong-Way Car Accident
Michigan Court of Appeals: Hearing Loss Can Impair Bodily Function
In a published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently found that hearing loss can present a serious impairment of bodily function and the injured person can recover damages under Michigan’s No-Fault law.
The plaintiff was in an automobile accident where the air bags were deployed and the side curtain airbag above the driver’s side door hit on the side of her face, her left ear, and the top of her head. She experienced some hearing loss and tinnitus (ringing in the ears) after the accident.
The Court of Appeals found that subjective testing methods incorporated into evidence from medical professionals and others were acceptable proof that arguably demonstrated “objectively manifested impairment” of a body function. The plaintiff experienced ringing in her ears, which does not show up in any kind of medical test and is considered a subjective diagnosis.
There was evidence that the Plaintiff “had trouble communicating with her family, and her tinnitus made it difficult to drive for long periods as required by her work,” and to engage in other activities she previously enjoyed.
The decision is Patrick v Turkelson, ___ Mich App ___; Docket No. 336062 (Jan. 16, 2018): http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2018/011618/67017.pdf.
Note: This is for informational purposes and was not a Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys case.
Does your case deserve a second look? Let Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys maximize your chances for success on appeal and let a new and experienced eye identify a winning issue. Contact us today!