Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #234196; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Hood and Sawyer; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor on plaintiff’s noneconomic loss claim for serious impairment of body function. At trial, defendants moved for directed verdict on plaintiff’s threshold claim which the court denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, finding that plaintiff’s injuries met the no-fault threshold. The trial court subsequently denied defendants’ motion for JNOV. The Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and the trial court and held that plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the threshold definition of serious impairment of body function as set forth in section 3135(7). In this regard, the court stated that the trial court should have decided this issue as a matter of law because there was no material factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. In reviewing the record de novo, the court held that plaintiff’s back injury, although involving an important body function, did not affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. As a result, it did not satisfy the threshold definition. The court held:
“Although the ability to move one’s back constitutes an important body function, plaintiff did not establish serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s doctors noted he enjoys full range of motion in his back. Although plaintiff had to restrict his work activities for a period of time because of the injuries, neither he nor his doctors indicated his work or recreational activities are currently restricted. Additionally, plaintiff’s only treatment for his condition was the use of pain medication, and his prognosis is for continuation of the status quo. For these reasons, we hold plaintiff’s injuries did not affect his general ability to live his normal life and, consequently, he did not suffer serious impairment of body function. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for JNOV.”
