Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #231424; Unpublished
Judges Cooper, Hoekstra and Markey; 2-1 (Judge Cooper 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's refusal to grant summary disposition to defendant on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff in this case had sustained disabling injuries in an earlier accident occurring in 1993 and then allegedly sustained injuries in a subsequent accident occurring in 1996 which gave rise to plaintiff's claim. However, the evidence showed that plaintiff was disabled as a result of the 1993 accident and that plaintiff's disability had not significantly changed as a result of the 1996 accident. Therefore, plaintiff did not factually demonstrate that she sustained an impairment of an important body function that affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court noted:
“Plaintiff admitted that her daily routine did not change after the 1996 accident because she had already been disabled from working and performing household chores as a result of her 1993 accident. Before the 1996 accident, Plaintiff was still disabled from work and was restricted from doing everyday household chores. She was unable to do any normal household chores like cooking, cleaning, laundry, vacuuming, and housecleaning. After the accident, plaintiff was still disabled from work and still unable to accomplish every day household chores. . . . in determining whether a factual dispute exists with respect to the extent of plaintiff's injuries, it is appropriate to compare plaintiff's lifestyle before and after the accident. . . . Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any aspect of her day-to-day activities was affected as a result of the injuries she sustained in the 1996 accident. Rather, the evidence shows that she was unable to perform household chores before the 1996 accident and that her general ability to lead her 'normal life' was not significantly altered by her injury.”
Judge Cooper dissented regarding the threshold ruling.
