Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 219378; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Murphy, and Griffin; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim alleging serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case was an 84-year old man who sustained facial injuries, including a large hematoma around his left eye and swelling that resulted in a drooping left eyelid and some difficulty in vision. The plaintiff underwent surgery which improved his condition; however, he was left with some residual paralysis above the left eye, the inability to raise his left eyebrow, and periodic headaches which he treated with Tylenol. The parties agreed that plaintiff’s impairment was “objectively manifested,” but the defendant contended that the impairment did not involve “an important body function.” The Court of Appeals disagreed with defendant and found that the severe edema of both eyes, facial swelling and drooping of the eyelid all contributed to obstructing plaintiff’s vision. Therefore, plaintiff had alleged an impairment of an important body function. However, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that plaintiff’s impairment did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. According to his own testimony, the plaintiff acknowledged that his ability to engage in his normal daily activities might be, “just a little, but not much” affected. When asked to elaborate, the plaintiff could only say that he no longer wanted to work on top of his roof or go swimming. In all other respects, plaintiff was able to engage in all of his other post-accident activities, including driving from Illinois to Michigan seven (7) times per year. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that “plaintiff presented no evidence that the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition to defendant.”
