Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262142; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, White, and Wilder; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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 reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
The plaintiff in this case was a city bus driver who was injured in an automobile accident in April, 2001. Plaintiff did not resume working in full capacity as a bus driver until March, 2004. Plaintiff primarily relied on this change in his ability to work during this period to establish the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
In reversing the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in determining plaintiff could not establish a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law, because he had returned to full duty work as before, without restrictions. Although the trial court concluded plaintiff’s “back and shoulder injuries” constituted impairment of an important body function that was objectively manifested, the trial court erroneously held an “impairment cannot meet the threshold unless the change in the plaintiff’s life is permanent.” In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals noted Kreiner had acknowledged residual impairment is not mandatory and stated, “That the duration of the impairment is short does not necessarily preclude a finding of a serious impairment of body function.” Further, in Williams v Medukas, 266 Mich App 505 (2005), this court recognized an injury need not be permanent in order to be serious. Therefore, the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant was reversed.
