Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #250727; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Neff and Cooper; 2-1 (Judge Zahra dissenting); 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished 2-1 per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses and remanded for entry of summary disposition for plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case sustained an acute fracture of the mid-shaft of the right tibia and an acute displaced fracture of the right fibula after the defendant’s vehicle backed into her at a high rate of speed and threw her 10 to 12 feet into the air. The impact also bent a titanium rod that had been inserted into plaintiff’s right tibia from an earlier injury for which she was no longer being treated. Plaintiff, an active student, spent six to eight weeks in a cast. She had to cancel a planned vacation. After the cast was removed plaintiff’s activities were limited. For example, plaintiff was a film student and was unable to carry the required lighting and film equipment for her studies. She was also unable to participate in recreational activities such as skate boarding. Although plaintiff healed within a relatively short period of time, the court nevertheless found that the injuries had affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“We do not read Kreiner to require that plaintiffs must suffer serious impairment permanently in order to be entitled to meet the requirements of serious impairment of important body function. Indeed, Kreiner held that impairments of a short duration can be sufficient to meet the serious impairment threshold. . . . Under the totality of the circumstances in this case, including the seriousness and extent of the fractures, the nature and extent of treatment with casting and crutches, and the lifestyle alterations, all support a finding that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law.”
Judge Zahra dissented, finding the facts of this case indistinguishable from the facts in Straub v Collette.
