Supreme Court summarily overturns Court of Appeals: man already too messed up to suffer serious impairment

Daniel Wiedyk was already disabled when he was hurt in a car accident.  He claimed, however, that his already very limited lifestyle was significantly diminished by the car accident injuries.  His doctor confirmed that Wiedyk's injuries caused further limitation in his lifestyle and enjoyment of life.  Wiedyk filed an affidavit attesting to the activities he could no longer enjoy.  The Court of Appeals ruled that a judge erred by refusing to consider Wiedyk's affidavit that addressed his lifestyle, and that the Judge needed to re-evaluate whether a jury should address the issue of whether the at-fault driver (and his insurer) had caused an injury that resulted in a "serious impairment of bodily function."   The Court's holding suggested that a person with serious existing disabilities may still suffer a "serious impairment of lifestyle" within the meaning of the No Fault Act, enabling the victim to sue for damages . 

In a one paragraph decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals judges' unanimous opinion and summarily dismissed Wiedyk's claim.  It held that "When considered in light of the record developed in this case, the affidavit's conclusory allegations regarding the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and impairments, nearly all of which the plaintiff suffered prior to the accident in question, were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff's ability to lead his pre-accident lifestyle was impacted by the 2005 accident."

If there were any remaining question, this case demonstrates once again that our High Court of insurance-oriented Justices totally lacks empathy and is devoid of respect for constitutional rights.  It has elevated "efficiency" and its own factual assessment of claims, above the civil rights and guarantees (including the right to a trial by ones' peers) the Justices were sworn to protect.