Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 244687; Unpublished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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The Court of Appeals held that the excerpt from plaintiff’s deposition and an affidavit from plaintiff’s doctor did not provide specific facts to show that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function under §3135(7), or whether plaintiff suffered a “serious neurological injury” under §3135(2)(a)(ii).
Plaintiff claimed she had sustained a closed head injury in the accident, and that she also hurt her “head, back and neck in the accident and that her chest was affected.” In response to the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, a physician’s affidavit was attached in which he stated that plaintiff “. . . has been diagnosed with a closed head injury which may be a serious neurological injury as a result of her automobile accident of January 21, 1999.”
The trial court held that the excerpt from plaintiff’s deposition and the affidavit of her physician did not contain any facts or details showing that plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affected her general ability to lead a normal life. Mere conclusory allegations that are devoid of detail do not satisfy the burden of a party opposing a motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals held that an affidavit that simply states an expert’s opinion, without providing any scientific or factual support, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the trial court grant of summary disposition was upheld.
