Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 244983; Unpublished
Judges Cooper, O’Connell, and Fort Hood; 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)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court grant of summary disposition for defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff was involved in a car accident on October 30, 1998, and treated with her family physician for complaints of pain in her left knee and leg. In July, 2000, an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed plaintiff with patellar condromalacia, a degenerative softening of cartilage under the kneecap. In September, 2000, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery for removal of loose cartilage and the excision of a plica, a fold of skin, from under the kneecap. Twenty days after surgery, plaintiff was released to return to work with a restriction of no kneeling or squatting for six weeks. In November, 2000, plaintiff was discharged from physical therapy.
In reversing the trial court grant of summary disposition, the court noted that the defendant had failed to properly attach deposition testimony or any other admissible documentary evidence in support of its motion. Despite these deficiencies, plaintiff submitted an affidavit in opposition to the dispositive motion. Specifically, plaintiff attested that her lifestyle before and after the accident was severely impacted by the accident.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had an objectively manifested injury to her knee, that walking is an important body function, and that plaintiff had attested that the injury incurred from the accident severely impacted her lifestyle, to which defendant had not presented any documentary evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that summary disposition was proper.
