Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261684; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Neff, and Donofrio; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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 vacated the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings base upon the failure of the trial court to make any of the required findings regarding plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function.
Without describing the nature of the injuries alleged in this case, the Court of Appeals held the decision in May v Sommerfield, 239 Mich App 197 (1999), requires specific factual findings by the trial court to support its decision on a motion for summary disposition on serious impairment of body function. The trial court here never determined whether plaintiff sustained an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. This is a necessary predicate for tort liability. The trial court also failed to discuss the actual extent of plaintiff’s injuries or continuing disability and whether any material factual dispute exists. The trial court further failed to examine plaintiff’s life before and after the accident or to discuss any of the factors listed in Kreiner, supra, on the record.
Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, consistent with its opinion.
