Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 245562; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Wilder, and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings a case in which the trial court had granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Without discussing the nature of plaintiff’s injuries, the Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings, consistent with its holding in May v Sommerfield, 239 Mich App 197; 607 NW2d 442 (1999), in which the trial court was instructed to make findings concerning whether a factual dispute existed with respect to whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function, considering the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injury, consistent with §3135(2)(a)(i) or (ii). In determining the nature of plaintiff’s injuries, the trial court should make appropriate findings concerning whether or not plaintiff has an objectively manifested impairment, if so whether an important body function is impaired, and whether there is a factual dispute with respect to whether the impairment affects plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life.