Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #247727; Unpublished
Judges Cooper, Fort Hood, and Gribbs; 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)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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 and permanent serious disfigurement, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant and remanded for further proceedings.
In this case, the court described plaintiff’s injury as a “scar just above his right eyelid that is twenty millimeters in length, a smaller scar near his right elbow, and a smaller scar near his right kneecap.” Testimony of a physician indicated the appearance of the scars could be greatly improved with surgery, but also no matter how well the procedure went, plaintiff would still have some “residual degree of noticeable scarring.” The trial court determined, as a matter of law, the scar was not serious.
The Court of Appeals noted that although in Nelson v Myers, 146 Mich App 444 (1985), wherein it found a scar larger than plaintiff’s scars not sufficiently serious to meet the threshold, in the instant case, review of the photographic evidence showed the scarring near plaintiff’s eye was “much darker than the surrounding skin.” The court noted the combination of plaintiff’s pigmentation and the location of the scar made it particularly noticeable. Further, the court noted plaintiff had submitted evidence the plastic surgery required to reduce the appearance of his scars would cost over $10,000.
Based upon this evidence, the court felt a “factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries” existed under MCL 500.3135(2)(a) and, therefore, the trial court erred in ruling against plaintiff on this issue as a matter of law.
