Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262225; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Cavanagh, and Owens; 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 [3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the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 reversed and remanded for further proceedings the trial court grant of summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
Without describing the specific injuries alleged in this case, the court held the trial court erred in failing to make the “appropriate factual findings to support its decision.” Rather than making specific findings as required in May v Sommerfield, 239 Mich App 197 (1999), the trial court merely determined plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the threshold requirement. The trial court is required to make specific findings as to whether plaintiff’s injuries were an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. The trial court also failed to examine plaintiff’s life before and after the accident or to take into account any of the factors set forth in the Kreiner decision. The matter was, therefore, remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
