Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #236212; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Meter and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's refusal to grant summary disposition in favor of defendant and held, as a matter of law, that plaintiff failed to establish he suffered a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff's claimed injury was depression which he alleged flowed from a back injury. However, plaintiff abandoned his claim that his back injury constituted a serious impairment of body function and instead argued that he crossed the threshold because of his depression. In finding that the plaintiff's depression constituted a serious impairment of body function, the trial court relied solely on the fact that plaintiff was receiving Social Security benefits for depression, which the Court of Appeals held was inappropriate because there was no record evidence of the receipt of these benefits and no medical elaboration with regard to the factual basis upon which those benefits were awarded. Plaintiff was obligated to present these facts in response to defendant's motion for summary disposition and failed to do so. In reviewing plaintiff's claim de novo, the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff's injury did not constitute serious impairment of body function for two reasons: First, it was not objectively manifested and second, it did not affect plaintiff's general ability to lead his normal life. With regard to these conclusions, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Regardless whether plaintiff's depression is serious or 'major', plaintiff must show that it 'affect[s] the functioning of the body'. There is no evidence that plaintiff's depression has a physical basis or that it has affected the functioning of his body. . . . Plaintiff abandoned his claim that the accident caused his back pain and, indeed, the trial court explicitly ruled that the accident did not cause plaintiff's back problems. Thus, plaintiff cannot now claim that his depression, triggered by his back pain, affected his ability to function to recover under the no-fault act. For similar reasons, there is no evidence that plaintiff's depression affected his general ability to lead a normal life. . . In sum, no record evidence suggests that plaintiff's feelings of hopelessness led to any significant life change. Finally, were we to conclude that plaintiff's depression constitutes an impairment of body function, it is certainly not 'serious' for purposes of the threshold injury requirement. . . .”