Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 214004; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era:1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case sustained an injury resulting in a loss of strength in his non-dominant left hand and some neck pain. The plaintiff testified that his neck problem was attributed to “mostly because according to the way I put my pillow.” With regard to plaintiff’s complaints of back pain, plaintiff testified that the problem is “a little problem, not too much.” The trial court ruled that there was no material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, and therefore, summary disposition as a matter of law was appropriate. The trial court further ruled that plaintiff’s injury was objectively manifested but there was not sufficient evidence that plaintiff’s injury affected his ability to lead his normal life. In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge applied the correct standard by looking at the affect of plaintiff’s injury on plaintiff’s ability to lead his own normal life rather than “a normal life.” Applying this correct standard, the trial court properly compared plaintiff’s pre-accident and post-accident lifestyles and concluded that plaintiff “can do most of the things he could do before the accident.” Accordingly, “plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s objectively manifested impairment has affected his general ability to lead his normal life.”
In reaching this decision, the opinion characterized 1995 P.A. 222 as a statute that “overturned the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in DiFranco v Pickard ... by codifying the tort threshold injury standards of Cassidy v McGovern....” Judge Murphy concurred in the result only.
