Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 71705; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Bronson, and McDonald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element oSerious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The threshold issue was tried before a jury who found that plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function. The Court of Appeals, finding a material factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries, upheld the trial court's decision to submit the claim to the jury.
Plaintiff’s injuries consisted of a fractured jaw which required wiring for three months, alleged hearing loss associated with accumulation of fluid behind the eardrum and misaligned teeth which would require 18 to 24 months of orthodontic therapy to correct. As a result of plaintiff’s jaw fracture, his upper and lower teeth were wired together with arch bars. Plaintiff was unable to eat solid foods and had difficulty speaking. He lost approximately 20 pounds and was on pain medication. After the wires were removed, plaintiff's wisdom teeth were pulled. Plaintiff’s ear doctor testified that the hearing loss could have been caused by a respiratory problem, although he felt there was a relationship to the auto accident trauma. Plaintiff’s dentist testified that a previous fracture of plaintiff’s jaw had caused significant atrophy that may have created the problems with plaintiff’s bite. The third doctor who examined plaintiff regarding the need to realign his teeth testified he was unable to determine if the misalignment was related to the accident Further, a woman with whom plaintiff lived shortly after the accident testified that plaintiff had resumed his normal activities a short time after the accident, including repairing his van, going to the beach, dancing and drinking. According to her, plaintiff was also able to sing without any difficulty and he was not observed experiencing any severe pain.
The Court of Appeals held that when the evidence was viewed in a light most favorable to the defendants, "a material factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries existed which precluded the trial court from ruling on the issue of serious impairment of body function as a matter of law."