Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 216738; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Whitbeck and Martlew; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim for serious impairment of body function. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim on the basis that plaintiff failed to prove an objective manifestation of injury. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court, but affirmed summary disposition because plaintiff failed to present evidence that the injury affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. Therefore, summary disposition was appropriate, even though the trial court granted it for the wrong reason.
In affirming summary disposition, the Court of Appeals observed, “Because the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function is the same as the definition adopted in Cassidy v McGovern, it is appropriate to refer to Cassidy and cases decided thereunder in deciding this case.” The court went on to say that plaintiff’s injury was objectively manifested, in that plaintiff demonstrated a softening in the cartilage in his knee and a dislocation of two cervical vertebrae. Moreover, the injury to the knee involved “an important body function.” However, the court found that plaintiff was basically able to engage in most of his pre-accident activities. In this regard, the court observed, “However, because plaintiff still could go to work and apparently do everything except walk for long periods of time, do some exercises, and participate in some sports, the evidence does not support a finding that plaintiff’s injuries affected his general ability to lead a normal life.... While plaintiff’s doctor expressed an opinion to the contrary, the issue was one of law for the court, and a party’s expert is not qualified to interpret and apply the law. Because the trial court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason, we will not reverse.”
