Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 247903; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Sawyer, 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)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement.
Plaintiff sustained injury to her right arm on August 19, 2000, while a passenger in a motor vehicle. She was treated at the hospital that evening and discharged with pain medication. For two weeks after the accident, she returned to the hospital burn unit to have the wound cleaned. Thereafter, she cleaned the wound at home for a week to 10 days. On September 13, 2000, plaintiff was given permission by her doctor to return to work without any restrictions.
After litigation was commenced, plaintiff was sent for an independent medical examination by a plastic surgeon. The surgeon identified three scars on plaintiff’s right forearm: (1) a scar distal to the elbow joint two centimeters in length and one-half centimeter width; (2) a scar from the ulnar bone in the distal direction, two centimeters in length; and (3) a curved scar measuring three and one-half centimeters in length and one-half centimeter in width.
The plastic surgeon indicated that the scars were permanent, but indicated that surgery would lessen the appearance and sensitivity issues. Plaintiff was also precluded from performing some household chores immediately after the accident, but was able to perform all household chores within a short period of time after the accident.
In response to the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court concluded that an objective manifestation of an impairment of an important body function had been established with regard to plaintiff’s right arm injury. However, the trial court concluded that the injury did not impact plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life. Plaintiff’s testimony revealed that she was able to engage in most of the same activities both before and after the accident. Under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition on the serious impairment of body function issue.
The court further noted that although the plaintiff had not alleged permanent serious disfigurement in her complaint, the defense had moved for summary disposition of the claim on this basis, plaintiff had opposed the motion, and the trial court had ruled that dismissal of this claim was proper also. The Court of Appeals held that assuming the plaintiff would have amended her complaint to allege permanent serious disfigurement, summary disposition of this claim was proper.
