Two more "serious impairment" cases are sent back to the lower court for review

In two cases,  Ross v. State of Michigan and Brooks v. Anderson, et al., the Court of Appeals this week overturned summary dispositions that had been granted to at-fault defendants because the plaintiff/victims had been deemed not to meet the "life-altering" requirement of the "serious impairment" threshold.  Ms. Ross alleged a severe wrist fracture with delayed healing and psychological problems arising out of a significant wreck allegedly caused by a State Trooper's negligent driving.  Brooks alleged that he suffered multiple facial and jaw fractures requiring surgery, jaw wiring and significant follow-up care after being struck from behind at high speed.  Brooks' case had been dismissed, despite medical records evidencing a slow recovery with significant pain, because the trial judge concluded that "he did have a pretty serious mouth injury...but he recovered pretty well...he did have some trouble eating, but aside from that it really didn't affect his normal life."  Guess maybe that depends on whose face got clobbered.