Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #229408; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Neff and Saad; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on plaintiff’s noneconomic loss claim of serious impairment of body function and held that the trial court wrongly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case because the injuries failed to meet the no-fault threshold. The injuries in this case were unspecified neck injuries which the court concluded were not “sufficiently severe, as a matter of law, that plaintiff is prevented from living a normal life.” The court noted that:
“plaintiff did not experience severe, gripping pains until the incident at her karate class on January 26, 1996. Additionally, though plaintiff received medical treatment several times after the automobile accident, but before January 26, 1996, those treatments related to plaintiff’s asthma, not her neck injuries. Plaintiff testified that she missed two to three days of work after the automobile accident, and refrained from engaging in physical activity for one week. Two weeks after the accident, plaintiff was again participating in her karate class, working, exercising and, in brief, leading a ‘normal life.’ Ample evidence showed that plaintiff remained very active as she continued to work, travel, and exercise. Further, her prognosis for recovery has been very favorable. Although plaintiff complains that she must alternate her swimming strokes and that she has pain in her neck when turning her neck to drive and when sitting for long periods of time, nothing indicates that plaintiff’s general ability to lead a normal life has been significantly altered by any injury received as a result of the automobile accident. Therefore, we hold that plaintiff is unable to meet the threshold of MCL 500.3135(1), and the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on this basis.”
