Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #237406 and 244788; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, White and Donofrio; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function for the reason that a factual dispute existed precluding decision as a matter of law. The plaintiff in this case was a high school girl who, as a result of a rear end auto accident, sustained a fracture of the pubic ramus bone. Before the accident, plaintiff was a cheerleader, was active physically and held a job in a retail clothing store. Immediately after the accident, plaintiff could not walk or sit up, was bed bound for several days, and walked on crutches for several weeks. Plaintiff was in considerable pain for five (5) or six (6) weeks after the accident. Eight (8) months after the accident, plaintiff testified she could not walk for any appreciable distance without pain, could not stand for long periods, could not carry heavy loads, continued to limp, and was impaired in exercising. Plaintiff's treating physician further testified that plaintiff might develop osteoarthritis, but was unable to so state with certainty. In ruling that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff, the Court of Appeals stated:
“. . . we do recognize that plaintiff only missed six days of work, her physician only imposed minor restrictions on her activities, and plaintiff herself placed restrictions on her exercise. Nevertheless, an injury need not be permanent to be serious. . . . We conclude that there was a factual dispute concerning the extent of plaintiff's injuries that was material to the question whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function. Because there is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, and it is material to the determination, the circuit court erred when it determined this question as a matter of law.”
