Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 236505; Published
Judges Hood, Smolenski and Kelly; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 254 Mich. App. 454, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation 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 opinion by Judge Smolenski, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case sustained a fracture of the fifth metacarpal of his left hand, commonly known as a “boxer’s fracture.” He also sustained open wounds, including extensor tendon injuries to his middle and ring fingers necessitating outpatient surgery, some physical therapy, and a cast for a period of time. Plaintiff's injuries essentially affected him for a four month period (from the date of his accident in mid-September, 1999 until January, 2000). During that four month period, plaintiff was unable to work full time for approximately three months. In addition, we was unable to play bass guitar in his band for about four months. Plaintiff played in his band several times per week. The trial court held that plaintiff's left hand injuries did not seriously affect his normal life. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals noted:
“Importantly, an injury does not need to be permanent in order to constitute a serious impairment of body function. Thus while we believe it is clear that plaintiff was free of any serious impairment of body function by mid-January 2000, that does not necessarily mean that there was not serious impairment of body function based on the effects of his left hand injuries between the occurrence of the collision on September 19, 1999, and that time. . . . The period of about four months that plaintiff could not perform musically was a significant amount of time. In addition, plaintiff was limited in his ability to work at his full-time employment for about three months. In deciding whether injuries constitute a serious impairment of body function, it is appropriate to compare a plaintiff's lifestyle before and after the accident. . . . It is also important to bear in mind that the plain language of M.C.L. §500.3135(7) provides a ‘subjective’ definition in that the determination centers on the effect on the particular injured party’s normal life as opposed to the typical effect of injuries of a certain type on people generally. Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that plaintiff’s injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function because, albeit for a relatively limited time, they did affect his general ability to lead his normal life, particularly his ability to perform musically and to work which were integral parts of his normal life. . . . The trial court's view of plaintiff’s ‘guitar playing’ as an ‘extrinsic’ consideration seems to incorrectly consider whether plaintiff's injuries were serious in themselves, i.e., the general seriousness of such injuries, rather than how the injuries affected plaintiff's general ability to lead his normal life. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
