Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260402; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Fitzgerald and Meter; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [3135(1)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claims for non-economic losses and permanent serious disfigurement. The court first determined whether plaintiff’s undefined injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff testified that since the accident there are activities he can only do with difficulty such as mowing the lawn, playing and wrestling with his daughter, taking the garbage out, washing the car and cleaning the house. He said his employment status was unchanged. Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Therefore, it found the trial court did not err in determining that the issue whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law under the circumstances. In this regard, it stated:
“In this case, plaintiff indicated in his deposition that there were activities, such as cutting the grass, playing, wrestling with his daughter, taking the garbage out, washing the car, and cleaning the house, that had been affected by his injury, but stated that he could perform those activities with difficulty. He did not identify any activities that he was unable to perform. His employment status was unchanged. He presented no evidence of any physician-imposed restrictions; self-imposed restrictions that are based solely on pain are insufficient to establish residual impairment.”
As to the one-centimeter scar in the middle of plaintiff’s forehead, the Court of Appeals found that it was barely perceptible and agreed with the trial court that it was not a permanent serious disfigurement. In this regard, the court observed:
“The trial court explained that although the scar may be permanent, ‘it’s really almost unnoticeable,’ and described it as ‘barely perceptible.’ Whether a plaintiff has suffered permanent serious disfigurement is a question of law if the court finds that there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries or if there is a factual dispute, the dispute is not material to the determination. MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii). Here, the trial court correctly concluded that the scar was not a permanent serious disfigurement and properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
(Emphasis in original)
