Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #238465; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, White and Hoekstra; (2-1 Judge Kelly dissenting); 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff sustained a fracture of the fifth carpal bone of her left hand. She underwent physical therapy and seven (7) months later, developed a bone spur in the area of the fracture. X-rays taken three (2) years after the accident revealed the bones in plaintiff's left hand were “osteoporotic.” The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed error in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on the threshold question for the reason that a question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff's injury affected her ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court quoted plaintiff's deposition and plaintiff's affidavit with regard to the nature and extent of her injury and, with respect to that evidence, stated:
“she used to be ambidextrous but now had to rely on her right hand; she used to be able to lift a lot of heavy things, but could do so no longer because her hand gave out; she could not open jars as before; she used to sew a lot, but now was unable to maneuver her hands; she used to mow the two acre lawn at her home, but no longer had the strength or dexterity; she struggled with the simple task of opening a bag of potato chips; she could no longer do or needs help doing many household chores, including vacuuming and laundry; sometimes she is able to tie her shoes, but her husband often has to do it because her hand is swollen or numb.” With regard to this evidence, the court stated that a jury determination was required.
Judge Kelly dissented.
