Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #225535; Unpublished
Judges White, Talbot and Post; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary disposition for defendant on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. The injury suffered by plaintiff was a TMJ disorder involving plaintiff's left jaw. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that her general ability to lead her normal life had been affected by the TMJ problem. The only effect this condition had on plaintiff was that she tended to eat softer foods and avoided larger items, had frequent headaches that were controlled by over-the-counter medications and she wore a bite splint sometimes during the day. Otherwise, plaintiff was able to work full-time and had no restrictions in her lifestyle. In affirming summary disposition in favor of defendant, the court relied upon Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333 (2000) [Item No. 2132] and Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244 (2001) [Item No. 2220] and the earlier case law cited in those opinions. With regard to those cases, the court stated,“In those earlier cases, where the plaintiffs, like the plaintiff in this case, suffered pain and discomfort but were not incapacitated or subjected to significant changes in lifestyle, this Court determined that the trial courts correctly decided as a matter of law that the plaintiffs had not suffered a serious impairment.... Applying a similar approach in this case, we conclude that the trial court correctly found that, as a matter of law, plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a serious impairment of body function.”
2253. Actions on Applications for Leave to Appeal by the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Michigan Supreme Court has taken the following actions with regard to these applications for leave to appeal:
(a) Gier v Auto Owners Insurance Company [Item No.2186] - leave to appeal denied, June 26, 2001. Therefore, Item No. 2186 is final.
(b) Cruz v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [Item No. 2144] - leave to appeal granted, June 27, 2001. The issue is limited to whether examination under oath provisions in a no-fault policy are permitted by the No-Fault Act.
(c) Houghton v Auto Club Insurance Association [Item No. 2168] - applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are denied, July 10, 2001. Therefore, Item No. 2168 is final.
(d) Wilkinson v Lee and General Motors Corporation [Item No. 2066] - leave to appeal denied, August 28, 2001. Therefore, Item No. 2066 is final.
(e) State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v Old Republic Insurance Company [Item No. 2167] - leave to appeal granted, November 14, 2001. The issue is limited to whether the inquiry under MCL 500.3123 is limited to the property protection insurance policy that covers the “vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident out of which the property damage arose,” or whether damage is excluded from property protection benefits if the property owner was named in any property protection insurance policy.
(f) Wycoff v Auto Club Insurance Association [Item No. 2202] - leave to appeal denied, December 21, 2001. Therefore, Item No. 2202 is final.
