Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 28667; Published
Bashara J., Danhof C.J, and Maher J; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 74 Mich App 615; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING: ,
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
The Court of Appeals somewhat limited the previous Court of Appeals decision of McKendrick v Petrucci, 71 Mich App 200 (1976) and held that in certain very limited situations, it is permissible for the trial judge to grant summary judgment on the question of serious impairment of body function as set forth in §3135 of the No-Fault Statute. The plaintiff in this particular case was involved in an auto accident and sustained-a "stiff neck which was treated with minimal medication and subsequently disappeared within a week." The court stated that:
We do not read in the language of the Supreme Court (advisory opinion re constitutionality of 1972 PA 294) as a complete prohibition of the use of summary judgment whenever a serious impairment or permanent serious disfigurement is alleged in the pleadings. While we recognize that generally the trier of fact must make the qualitative decision of whether a particular injury is serious or permanent, it does not follow that the trial judge is in all cases precluded from consideration of those questions. . . . In holding that summary judgment is available where the alleged injuries fall below certain definitional limits, we do not mean to impose any strict rules for formulation of those limitations. Terms such as "serious" do not easily lend themselves to a delineated set of guidelines. As stated by the Supreme Court, each case must be handled individually.
The court also summarily rejected plaintiff's argument that the No-Fault Statute violates the Equal Protection Clause.