Michigan Serious Impairment Threshold After McCormick (2026)
Almost every Michigan auto-injury claim hinges on a single statutory phrase: serious impairment of body function. Under MCL 500.3135, an injured person cannot sue for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, or excess economic loss unless one of three thresholds is crossed: death, permanent serious disfigurement, or serious impairment of body function. The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010), rewrote the test that controls the third category. Sixteen years later it remains the framework that decides whether a third-party tort claim survives summary disposition.
The Statute and the History
MCL 500.3135 reads, in relevant part, that “a person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.” The statutory definition of “serious impairment of body function” appears in MCL 500.3135(5) (renumbered by 2019 PA 21): an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.
The Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court have spent decades fighting over what that phrase means. DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32 (1986), set the original test. The legislature replaced it with a statutory definition in 1995. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004), narrowed the test to a near-impossible standard. McCormick reversed Kreiner in 2010 and rebuilt the framework around the statutory text.
The McCormick Three-Part Test
Each prong is its own gate.
1. Objectively Manifested
The impairment must be observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions, generally evidenced by medical testing or imaging. Pain alone, without an underlying objective injury, does not satisfy this prong. MRI findings, EMG results, surgical observations, neurological deficits, and similar objectively verifiable evidence carry the prong.
2. Important Body Function
The body function impaired must be important to the specific claimant. McCormick rejected the prior approach of cataloguing certain functions as “important” in the abstract. Whether a function is important is judged in the context of the injured person’s life: a violinist’s left hand, a roofer’s lumbar spine, a teacher’s voice.
3. General Ability to Lead Normal Life
The impairment must affect the person’s general ability to lead a normal life, comparing pre- and post-incident life. The McCormick Court emphasized that the impairment need not be permanent, need not affect the entire life, and need not affect every activity. It must influence some of the claimant’s capacity to live the same kind of life he or she led before the crash.
How McCormick Changed Summary Disposition Practice
Pre-McCormick, defense counsel routinely filed for summary disposition arguing that the claimant could still bathe, drive, and work, therefore no threshold was met. Kreiner created a rigid factor test that often defeated cases at the summary disposition stage. McCormick made several practical changes:
- No quantitative comparison. The Court rejected the idea that the impairment must affect a specific percentage of the claimant’s life.
- No required duration. Temporary impairments can satisfy the threshold if they meet the other two prongs.
- Pre- and post-injury comparison. Courts compare the claimant’s life before and after the accident on the function in question; they do not compare the claimant to a hypothetical “normal” person.
- Aggravation rule retained. Pre-existing injuries do not bar recovery. The accident’s contribution to the worsening, if it meets the three-part test, is actionable.
The 2019 Reform Renumbering
2019 PA 21 renumbered MCL 500.3135 but did not displace the McCormick framework. The current statute keeps the same “objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life” definition. Practitioners should expect courts to continue applying McCormick until the Michigan Supreme Court signals otherwise.
Common Threshold Disputes in 2026
| Injury Type | Threshold Issue | Typical Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Soft-tissue with positive MRI | Whether MRI findings are sufficient objective manifestation | Often sufficient under McCormick; defense focuses on causation |
| Traumatic brain injury with normal CT | Whether neuropsychological testing is “objective” | Generally sufficient when supported by neuropsychological evaluation and observed behavioral changes |
| Surgical fusion or hardware | Importance of spinal function | Almost always satisfies the threshold |
| Soft-tissue with no positive imaging | Whether muscle spasms and range-of-motion limits are objectively manifested | Fact-intensive; often survives if treating physician documents physical findings |
| Pre-existing condition aggravated | Causation under the aggravation rule | Survives if the accident-related worsening meets the three-part test |
Procedural Hooks: Comparative Fault and Damages Caps
Even after the threshold is crossed, the claimant’s recovery is shaped by Michigan’s comparative-fault statutes. Under MCL 600.2959 and MCL 600.6304, a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault cannot recover noneconomic damages. A plaintiff at 50% or less recovers reduced damages. The collateral-source rules under MCL 600.6303 also influence the final recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need a permanent injury to meet the Michigan threshold?
No. McCormick made clear that the impairment need not be permanent. A temporary but significant impairment that affects the general ability to lead a normal life can meet the threshold.
Does pain by itself satisfy the threshold?
Generally not. The “objectively manifested” prong looks for something more than subjective pain — usually imaging, neurological findings, or other physician-observed objective evidence. Pain reports remain important to the “normal life” analysis but rarely carry the first prong alone.
What if I had a prior back injury and the crash made it worse?
Michigan retains the aggravation rule. Pre-existing conditions do not bar a threshold finding. The question is whether the accident-related worsening, on its own, meets the three-part test. Treating physicians and accident reconstruction experts often play a central role in that proof.
Can I still recover medical bills and wage loss if I do not meet the threshold?
Yes. The threshold under MCL 500.3135 governs noneconomic damages and excess economic loss in third-party tort claims. First-party PIP benefits under MCL 500.3107 are not subject to the threshold.
Is a positive MRI always enough?
Not by itself. A positive MRI helps with the “objectively manifested” prong but does not automatically satisfy the importance or normal-life prongs. The full record — treatment notes, work restrictions, daily-life impact — is what determines the outcome.
Did 2019 PA 21 change the McCormick test?
No. The reform renumbered the section and adjusted other elements of the no-fault system. The serious-impairment definition remains the same, and Michigan courts continue to apply the McCormick framework.
Injured in Michigan? Don’t fight the threshold alone.
Free, confidential review with Attorney Manny Chahal. No fee unless we recover.
Call 1-844-624-2425