Ramos, M. v. Jones, M. ( 2015 )

J-A05042-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MELANY RAMOS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL AND DONNA JONES,
Appellees No. 2124 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered June 18, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Civil Division at No(s): C-0048-CV-2012-2141
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2015
Appellant, Melany Ramos, appeals from the June 18, 2014 order that
granted partial summary judgment in favor of Michael Jones and Donna
Jones (collectively “Appellees”), which was made final and appealable by an
order entered on July 11, 2014. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural background
of this case as follows:
On March 2, 2012, [Appellant] filed a Praecipe for Writ of
Summons. On March 27, 2012, [Appellees] filed a Praecipe for
Rule to File Complaint.
On April 9, 2012, [Appellant] filed her Complaint, in which
she avers that on March 21, 2010, a motor vehicle accident
occurred between [Appellee] Michael Jones and [Appellant] at
the intersection of Union Boulevard and Airport Road. [Appellee]
Michael Jones was allegedly negligently driving a vehicle with the
permission of [Appellee] [Donna] Jones. [Appellant] avers in her
Complaint that she suffered “severe, serious and disabling”
injuries, directly and proximately caused by the [Appellees’]
J-A05042-15
negligence. Specifically, she complains of sprains and strains of
her neck and back, as well as injuries to her discs, shoulders,
head and right knee. She also asserts that she suffers mental
damages that were directly and proximately caused by this
motor vehicle accident: PTSD, depression, fear, anxiety, and/or
other mental and psychic injuries. [Appellant] also complains of
economic injuries, including lost wages, the incurrence of large
bills due to treatment, and out-of-pocket expenses. Finally,
[Appellant] complains that, as a result of the accident, she is
unable to pursue her usual occupation.
On April 25, 2012, [Appellees] filed an Answer and New
Matter. In their Answer, [Appellees] aver that [Appellee] Michael
Jones had [Appellee] Donna Jones’s permission to use the
vehicle, but he did not use the vehicle to run an errand for her or
under her direction. In their New Matter, [Appellees] chiefly
contend that [Appellant’s] claim for any non-economic losses is
barred pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act
(the “MVRL”), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701, et seq., because [Appellant]
selected the limited tort option when applying for the insurance
policy in effect at the time of the accident. See Answer with New
Matter at ¶¶ 25-27. Additionally, [Appellees] contest causation.
Id. at ¶28. Other affirmative and equitable defenses are also
raised in the New Matter.
On May 9, 2012, [Appellant] filed her Response, asserting
that the averments in [Appellees’] New Matter amounted to
conclusions of law. Id. at ¶¶ 29-33. The parties engaged in
discovery, which included obtaining medical records and
conducting depositions.
[Appellees] filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
on February 21, 2014, arguing that they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because [Appellant] selected the
limited tort option in her insurance policy and did not sustain an
injury which constitutes a serious impairment of a body function.
As such, they argue, she is not entitled to damages for non-
economic damages. [Appellees] filed a Memorandum of Law
supporting their Motion on the same date.
On March 24, 2014, [Appellant] filed an Answer and Brief
in Opposition, in which she argued that this determination is one
for the jury because reasonable minds could differ. On April 29,
2014, [Appellees] filed a Reply to [Appellant’s] Brief in
Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On May 1,
-2-
J-A05042-15
2014, [Appellant] filed [a] Reply to [Appellees’] Submission at
Oral Argument.
This matter was placed on the April 25, 2014, Argument
List and argument was heard.
Order and Statement of Reasons, 6/18/14, at 1-3.
The trial court concluded that Appellant’s injuries were de minimus,
and it granted Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment. Order and
Statement of Reasons, 6/18/14, at 1. The June 18, 2014 order precluded
Appellant from seeking or recovering non-economic damages due to her
selection of the limited tort option. Id. The order dismissed all claims for
non-economic damages with prejudice. Id.
Ordinarily, an order granting partial summary judgment is
interlocutory. However, on July 3, 2014, Appellant filed a motion to make
the June 18, 2014 order final and appealable pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c).
In an order filed on July 11, 2014, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion.
Accordingly, the July 11, 2014 order, which granted partial summary
judgment, made the June 18, 2014 order final and appealable. This timely
appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant raises one issue for this Court’s consideration:
1. Did the trial court usurp the jury’s function and commit an
error of law / abuse of discretion in granting partial summary
judgment and dismissing [Appellant’s] claim for noneconomic
damages, given the existence of genuine issues of material
fact as to whether [Appellant] suffered a “serious injury” or
serious impairment of some bodily function, especially
considering that [Appellant] submitted expert and lay
testimony that [Appellant’s] ongoing injuries permanently
disabled her from performing her pre-injury job as a CNA?
-3-
J-A05042-15
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
The standard of review we apply is as follows:
Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or
denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of
review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where
it is established that the court committed an error of law or
abused its discretion. Summary judgment is appropriate only
when the record clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. The reviewing court must view the record in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all
doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
against the moving party. Only when the facts are so clear that
reasonable minds could not differ can a trial court properly enter
summary judgment.
Hovis v. Sunoco, Inc., 64 A.3d 1078, 1081 (Pa. Super. 2013).
In Pennsylvania, when selecting automobile insurance, drivers have
the option of choosing limited-tort coverage or full-tort coverage. 75 Pa.C.S.
§ 1705. An individual who has purchased full-tort coverage and who is
injured by a negligent driver can recover all medical and out-of-pocket
expenses, as well as financial compensation for pain and suffering and other
noneconomic damages. Varner-Mort v. Kapfhammer, ___ A.3d ___, ___,
2015 PA Super 14, at *4, 2015 WL 252444 (Pa. Super. 2015) (filed January
21, 2015) (citing 75 Pa.C.S. § 1705(a)(1)(B)). “A limited-tort plaintiff also
can recover all medical and out-of-pocket expenses; however, such a
plaintiff cannot recover for pain and suffering or other noneconomic
damages unless the plaintiff’s injuries fall within the definition of ‘serious
injury.’” Id. (citing 75 Pa.C.S. § 1705(a)(1)(A)). The term “serious injury”
-4-
J-A05042-15
is defined as follows: “A personal injury resulting in death, serious
impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement.” 75
Pa.C.S. § 1702.
Our Supreme Court has held that in determining whether a
motorist has suffered a serious injury, “the threshold
determination was not to be made routinely by a trial court
judge ... but rather was to be left to a jury unless reasonable
minds could not differ on the issue of whether a serious injury
had been sustained.” Washington v. Baxter, 553 Pa. 434, 719
A.2d 733, 740 (1998). In conducting this inquiry, “several
factors must be considered to determine if the claimed injury is
‘serious’: ‘[1.] the extent of the impairment, [2.] the length of
time the impairment lasted, [3.] the treatment required to
correct the impairment, and [4.] any other relevant factors.’”
Graham v. Campo, 990 A.2d 9, 16 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal
denied, 609 Pa. 703, 16 A.3d 504 (2011). Our Supreme Court
has cautioned that “the focus of these inquiries is not on the
injuries themselves, but on how the injuries affected a particular
body function.” Washington, supra. We remain cognizant of
the principle that “[a]n impairment need not be permanent to be
serious” under section 1705(d). Robinson v. Upole, 750 A.2d
339, 342 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted).
Cadena v. Latch, 78 A.3d 636, 640 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added).
Following our review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and
relevant legal authority, we conclude that the Order and Statement of
Reasons, which is incorporated by reference in the trial court’s August 21,
2014 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement, comprehensively and correctly disposes
of Appellant’s claim of error. See Order and Statement of Reasons,
6/18/14, at 5-13 (reciting the facts of record, applying the four factors noted
above, and concluding that reasonable minds could not differ on the
conclusion that Appellant did not suffer a serious injury). Appellant elected
-5-
J-A05042-15
limited-tort coverage, and we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that
Appellant failed to establish that she suffered a “serious injury” as that term
is defined. We discern no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
conclusion.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court order granting Appellees’ motion
for partial summary judgment, and we do so on the basis of the trial court’s
Order and Statement of Reasons dated June 18, 2014. The parties are
directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s June 18, 2014 Order and
Statement of Reasons to this memorandum in the event of further
proceedings.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/10/2015
-6-
·~
J Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
j . ..
;J'
,,;
.
i
()
;
·.,
J IN .THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PEl'fNSYLVA.NU
1
.} CIVIL DIVISION
1
·1
' i\IELANIE R.Al\IOS, ) NO: C--18-CV-2012·2141
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Y.
i\HCHAEL JONES, DONNA JONES,
)
)
)
-
r
) rn
Defendants. )
0
-.. CJ
ORDER OF COURT en
AND NOW, this I ~r.dny of June, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendants, Michael
Jones and Barbara Jones's. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. and the Plaintiff. Melanie
Rarnos's, response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GR.\NTED. and the
Plaintiff is precluded from asserting and recovering any and all non-economic damages due to
(~)
her selection of the Limited Tort Option.
It is further ORDERED that any and all claims for non-economic damages are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
STATEME!\T OF REASO~'S
Facts and Procedural History
On March 2. 2012, the Plaintiff, Melanie Ramos. filed 2 Praecipe for Writ of Summons.
On March 27, 20 J 2, the Defendants, Michael Jones and Barbara Jones, filed a Praccipe for Rule
to File Complaint.
On April 9, 2012, the Pfointiff filed her Complaint, in which she avers that on March 21,
20 I 0, a motor vehicle accident occurred between Defendant Michael Jones and the Plaintiff at
the intersection of Union Boulevard and Airport Road. Defendant Michael Jones was allegedly
negligently driving a vehicle with the permission of Defendant Barbara Jones. The Plaintiff
u
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
0
avers in her Complaint that she suffered "severe, serious and disabling" injuries, directly and
. proximately caused by the Defendants' negligence. Specifically, she complains of sprains and
strains of her neck and back, as well as injuries to her discs, shoulders, head and right knee. She
also asserts that she suffers mental damages that were directly and proximately caused by this
motor vehicle accident: PTSD, depression, fear, anxiety, and/or other mental and psychic II
injuries. The Plaintiff also complains of economic injuries, including lost wages, the incurrence
\
of large bills due to treatment, and out-of-pocketexpenses. Finally, the Plaintiffcomplains that,
as a result of the accident, she is unable to pursue her usual occupation.
On April 25, 2012, the Defendants filed an Answer and New Matter. In their Answer, the
Defendants aver that Defendant Michael Jones had Defendant Donna Jones's permission to use
the vehicle, but he did not use the vehicle to run an errand for her or under her direction. In their ()
New Matter, the Defendants chiefly contend that the Plaintiff's claim for any non-economic
losses is barred pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (the "MYRL"), 75
Pa.C.S.A. § 1701, et seq., because the Plaintiff selected the limited tort option when applying for
the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. See Answer with New Matter at 1125-
27. Additionally, the Defendants contest causation. Id. at l 28. Other affirmative and equitable
defenses are also raised in the New Matter.
On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed her Response, asserting that the averments in the
Defendants' New Matter amounted to conclusions of law. Id. at f-129-33. The parties engaged
in discovery, which induded obtaining medical records and conducting depositions.
The Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on February 21, 2014,
arguing that they are entitled to judgment as a-matter of Jaw because the Plaintiff selected the·
limited tort option in her insurance policy and did not sustain an injury which constitutes a
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
()
serious impairment of a body function. As such, they argue, she is not entitled to damages for
non-economic damages. The Defendants filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion
on the same date.
On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an Answer and Brief in Opposition, in which she
argued that this determination is one for the jury because reasonable minds could differ. On
J
April 29, 2014, the Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Motion for
·~
'j
j
·1
Partial Summary Judgment. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed Reply lo Defendants'
Submission at Oral Argument.
·.·1
:! This matter was placed on the April 25, 2014, Argument List and argument was heard.
Legal Standard ()
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 states:
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to
unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in
whole or in part as a matter of law
(I) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a
necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including
the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden
of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the
cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to
be submitted to the jury.
Pa.R.C.P. l 035.2 .
..... ~
Further/under Pa.R.C.P. J 035.3(a), the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials of the pleadings but rnusrfile a response within thirty (30) days after
service of the motion. In other words, the nonmoving party has a clear and affirmative duty to u
3
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
()
respond to a motion for summary judgment. Harber Phi la. Ctr. Citv Office Ltd. v. LPCI Ltd.
P'ship, 764 A.2d 1100, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2000). Also, Pa.R.C.P. 1035.3(d) specifically provides
that "[s]ummary judgment may be entered against a party who does not respond." lg_,
Summary judgment may be granted only in the clearest of cases where the record shows
that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. P.J.S. v. Pa. State Ethics Comm'n, 723 A.2d 174, 176 (Pa. 1999) (citing
Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1991)). Summary judgment is only appropriate in the
clearest of cases, because an order favorable to the moving party will prematurely end an action.
Scopel v. Done!2al Mut. Ins. Co., 698 A.2d 602, 605 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citations omitted).
The moving party has the burden of proving the non-existence of any genuine issue of material
fact. O'Rourkc v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 730 A.2d 103.9, 1041 (Pa. Cornmw. Ct. 1999) (citing Kee ()
v. Tumoike Comrn'n, 722 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998)). "Failure ofa non-moving party
to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which it bears the burden of
proof ... establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law."
Mu;:phv v. Duguesne Univ. of the Holv Ghost, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (Pa. 2001) (quoting Youn2 v.
PennDOT, 744 A.2d 1276, 1277 (Pa. 2000)) (omission in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all
doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving
party. Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 674 A.2d I 038, I 04 t (Pa. 1996) ( citation omitted).
Under the Nanlv·Gto Rule, summary judgment may not be granted where the moving
party relies exclusively on oral testimony, either through testimonial affidavits or deposition
testimony to establish the absence of a genuint! issue of material fact. Nantv-Glo Borou!Zh v.
American Suretv Co., J 63 A. 523, 524 (Pa. 1932); see also Penn Center House. Inc. v. Hoffman,
(_)
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
()
553 A.2d 900, 903 (Pa. 1989); White v, Owens Comin!! Fibere:las. Coro., 668 A.2d 136, 142 (Pa.
Super. 1995); Garcia v. Savaize, 586 A.2d 1375, 1377-78 (Pa. Super. 1991); O'Rourke, 730 A.2d
at 1041 (citing Kaplan v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 688 A.2d 736 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997)).
·,i
Discussion
f,
Under Section 1705 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL''), an
insured motorist may elect a "limited tort" option in exchange for lower insurance rates. 75
Pa.C.S.A. § 1705; ~ also Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733, 737-38 (Pa. 1998). Under this
limited tort option, an insured driver who is injured by another driver may "seek recovery for all
medical and other out-of-pocket expenses, but not for pain and suffering or for other non-
monetary damages unless the injuries suffered fall within the definition of 'serious injury' as set
forth in the policy." 75 Pa.C.S.A. § I 705(a). While the insured who elects the limited tort OI
alternative remains eligible to pursue a cause of action for economic loss, "[uJnless the injury
sustained is a serious injury, each person who is bound by the limited tort option shall be
precluded from an action for any non-economic loss .... " 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1705(d). Further, the
MVFRL defines "serious injury" as "[a] personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of
a body function or permanent serious disfigurement." 75 Pa.C.S .A. § 1702.
Initially, we note that in Washirnzton v. Bnxter, supra, our Supreme Court established the
standard by which trial courts are lo determine whether a plaintiff has suffered a "serious injury"
by which the plaintiff is permitted Lo recover non-economic damages despite her selection of the
"limited tort option" under the MVFRL. Our Supreme Court determined, after a review of case
law and the legislative history of the lvfVFRL, that: "the traditional summary judgment standard
[is] to be followed and ... the threshold determination [is] not to be made routinely by a trial"
court judge in (these] matters ... but rather [is] to be left to a jury unless reasonable minds could
5
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
.I
(')
not differ on the issue of whether a serious injury has been sustained." Washington, 719 A.2d at
740. Moreover, all inferences must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Id. Thus, "the
ultimate determination should be made by the jury in all but the clearest of cases." McGee v.
Muldownev, 750 A.2d Q 12, 914 (Pa Super. 2000).
The Washineton Court adopted the following definition of't'serious impairment of a
bodily function" as stated by the Michigan Supreme Court:
The 'serious impairment of a bodily function' threshold contains two inquiries:
~.;
a) What body function, if any, was impaired because of injuries sustained in a
motor vehicle accident?
b} Was the impairment of the body function serious? The focus of these
inquiries is not on the injuries themselves, but on how the injuries affected a
.. particular body function. Generally medical testimony will be needed to
establish the existence, extent, and permanency of the impairment . . . . In
determining whether the impairment was serious, several factors should be CJ
considered: the extent of the impairment, the length of time the impairment
lasted, the treatment required to correct the impairment, and any other relevant
factors. An impairment need not be permanent to be serious.
Washim!ton, 719 A.2d at 740 (quoting Difranco v. Pickard, 398 N.W.2d 896, 901 (Mich. 1986))
(omission in original). Further, our Supreme Court emphasized that "[t]he question to be
answered is not whether appellant has adduced sufficient evidence to show that appellant
suffered any injury; rather, the question is whether appellant has shown that he suffered a
serious injury such that a body function has been seriously impaired." Id. at 741 (emphasis in
original); see also McGee, 750 A.2d at 914.
We look to first at what body function, if any, was injured as a result of the motor vehicle
accident of .tvfarcb 21, 20 I 0. Here, the Plaintiff complains of neck and shoulder pain, which she
contends resulted solely from the motor vehicle accident. See Complaint f I 0.
;~
CJ
::•
-~
6
·::, ·\, .
(~
.:~/: .id.While there has been a gap in the Plaintiff's employment history, however, she testified
during her deposition that she did not seek to secure employment until she moved to Harrisburg -.
( ).
9
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
()
after she was evicted from her residence. Id. The Plaintiff also notes that she had difficulty
obtaining a job because it took her awhile to obtain another vehicle. See id. at 26:9-10. She did
not obtain documentation from a medical provider to excuse her from work until a later date. ~
at 24. Likewise, she did not contact her former employer to request light duty, nor did she file
for disability. See id. at 29. During the time period in which the Plaintiff was out of work, she
was able to continue with her education by taking a class on campus and a class online. See id.
With regard to treatment, the Plaintiff sought emergency medical attention immediately
after the accident, in which her injuries were described as minor. See Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Exhibit "E." The Plaintiff went to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Grassi, and
to a few physical therapy treatments. See id. at Exhibit "M." Apparently, the Plaintiff could not
continue with certain treatments due to her financial circumstances, but sought emergency
C)
medical attention as necessary. See Deposition N.T. at 25. As noted above, however, Dr. Grassi
found on July 29, 2010, that her cervical adenopathy, which contributed to her pain levels, was
not caused by the motor vehicle accident, but rather from her failure to seek treatment from a
family doctor or a general surgeon. See Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Exhibit "K."
Finally, we examine any other relevant considerations regarding the impact of the injury
on the Plainti ff s performance of her job functions and engagement in personal activities. The
Plaitniff is able to continue with her education and with work, but she has difficulty sitting at
times and uses a rolling backpack, according to Dr. Grassi 's instructions, See id. Dr. Grassi
gave these instructions. however, after noting that the cervical adenopathy experienced by the
'
Plaintiff did not-result from the motor vehicle accident. See id.
The Plaintiff alleges that she has difficulty sleeping and requires her children's help to do
laundry. See Deposition N.T. at 67:20-25, 10:6-10. She indicates that this injury has had a u
iO
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
negative impact on her relationships with her children, as they cannot participate in physical
activities that they once enjoyed together, but admits that she can still watch them play sports
and spend meaningful time with them. See id. at 68:22-25, 69: 1-21. The Plaintiff also alleges
that this accident has impacted her mental state by worsening her depression. which she already
suffered from prior to the accident after she had her daughter, See id. at 67; 1-16. All of these
restrictions are self-imposed, as her physicians did not impose any limitations on her activities.
In terms of her employment, the Plaintiff is currently hired as a personal care assistant and
a connections club associate at Country Meadows, where she works approximately thirty hours
per week. See Deposition N.T. at 14:20-24; 16:22. Her job responsibilities include helping to
take care of the residents, participating i~ activities with them, and assisting residents in getting
dressed." Id. at I 5:3-6. She also had helped to "develop and implement cognitive support
programs or activities for residents with varied stages of dementia and Alzheimer's," a group of
()
patients with whom the Plaintiff enjoys working. Id. at 15:12-14. Further, the Plaintiff has fully
participated in furthering her education, obtaining a degree in business administration for
Northampton Community College, a bachelor's degree from Central Penn for Health Care
Administration in 2013, and attending classes at Eastern University in Harrisburg for Health
Care Administration, expecting her degree in 20 l 4. See id. at I 0: 15-24, 11 :3-13, 11: 15-22.
In \.Vashington, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the plaintiff had not
sustained a serious injury. Washin(!ton, 719 A.2d at 74l In that case, the plaintiff had been
diagnosed by the emergency room physician with mild injuries and was discharged after a few
hours. Id. He missed a fe~v shifts al his jobs, where he was required to do most of his work on
~"
his feet. Id. The court found that the treatment for his injuries was not extensive. I.Q... Further,
f,/
the arthritis in his right foot "seem[edJ to have had little or no impact on [the plaintiff's]
CJ
11
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
0
performance of his job functions and engagement in personal activities." Id. As a result, the
Washin!!ton court found the impairment resulting from the injury to be de minimis. ~
Similarly, the Plaintiff in the instant case has shown that she has suffered injury, which
based upon the medical records generated between the date of the accident and Dr. Grassi's note
of June 29, 2010, we would describe to be in the nature of soft tissue injuries to her back and
neck. Plaintiff has failed to show that "these injuries resulted in such substantial interference
with any bodily function as to permit a conclusion that the injuries have resulted in a serious
impact on [her) life for an extended period of time." McGee, 750 A.2d at 915. We note that
after the accident, she was discharged from the hospital on the same day with mild injuries.
Further, she has failed lo present objective medical evidence that any pain that she has
experienced during this time period resulted from the motor vehicle accident. In fact, her
treating physician, Dr. Grassi, determined that the cervical adenopathy did not result from the
C)
motor vehicle accident. Dr. Grassi noted that: "Regarding the cervical adenopathy, she's been
instructed many times to get this checked by her family physician and/or a general surgeon as
this is not part of the cervical injury related to her 1\ifVA." See id.; see also Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Exhibit "K.'' It is apparent that complaints about neck pain existed long
before the accident. In addition. the treatment for the Plaintiff's pain and symptoms has not been
extensive or consistent, but sporadic.
While the Plaintiff chooses to attribute her neck and back pain to the motor vehicle
accident, there is no support in the medical records for her claim. Further, the record establishes
that the pain doesnot inte;fere with her life, other than the claim that the pain makes it difficult
•:'
to participate in sports with her children. Again, we note that Plaintiff's complaints of
p
occasional stiffness and pain does not prevent her from working, attending school, viewing her (_)
12
Circulated 03/30/2015 01:36 PM
C)
children's athletic events, or engaging in her everyday routine. The evidence, when viewed in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, shows soft tissue injuries from the accident, but the
impairment from that injury is clearly de minimis in this case. Reasonable minds could not differ
here as to the absence of a serious impairment of a body function.
Therefore, we grant the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
BY THE COURT:
ff?::~
STEPHEN G. BAR<\ TTA, P.J.
C)
(_)
13