Another decision on "serious impairment"

In Richmond v. Stroup and Long-Stroup, two Judges of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision summarily dismissing Ms. Richmond's injury claims.  She had sued the at-faults in a motor vehicle accident after suffering a fractured wrist, a fractured ankle and a fractured rib.  Although she missed several months of work, endured a number of months of therapy, couldn't sleep on the sore rib cage, was casted from January to November of 2006, and used crutches until October, the trial court had deemed her injuries not to be a "serious impairment".  The lower court was not moved by the fact that her doctor had disabled her from housework for a full year or by her claims that she still had problems with the fracture sites 15 months post-injury.  She identified a number of changes in her life, anywhere from being unable to stand up and sing in choir to an inability to type comfortably for 8 to 10 hours per day--leading to a change in jobs.  The Court of Appeals majority concluded that at least for the first year after she was injured, her injuries constituted a "serious impairment".   Judge Wilder dissented and would consider her injuries inadequate to meet the threshold:  he would uphold the dismissal of her claim.