Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266116; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, O’Connell, and Murray; 2-1 (Judge O’Connell concurring in result only); 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)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant, finding that a 2¾ inch scar on plaintiff’s hip was not a permanent serious disfigurement under MCL 500.3135(1) of the No-Fault Act. In so finding, the court noted that nearly all facial scars that are immediately noticeable may constitute a serious disfigurement, however, common sense dictates that a scar on a person’s hip will have less of an emotional impact. In this regard, the court stated:
“The impact of a scar largely lies in the emotional effects it has on an individual. . . . The seriousness of a scar is nonetheless decided by a resort to common knowledge and experience, using an objective, rather than a subjective, standard. . . . Whether a scar is a serious disfigurement depends on its physical characteristics. . . . This Court has stated that ‘[a]lmost any facial scar which is immediately noticeable might result in serious emotional effects for the individual who must bear the scar.’ . . . The evidence in this case reveals that plaintiff has a scar that is approximately 2-3/4 inches long in her hip area. Although the scar is noticeable, common sense dictates that such a scar will have less of an emotional effect on an individual than a 2-3/4-inch facial scar. Considering all of the scar’s physical characteristics, including its size, location, pigmentation, and irregular shape, we agree with the trial court that it constitutes a disfigurement, but does not have the requisite seriousness to satisfy MCL 500.3135(1). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s determination that plaintiff failed to show that her permanent disfigurement was serious”