Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 216843; Unpublished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)]
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)]
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era: 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim for serious impairment of body function.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 plaintiff in this case suffered a broken tooth as a result of being struck by a car while riding a bicycle. Plaintiff wore a temporary replacement tooth for two years, then a permanent replacement was implanted. Plaintiff complained that the replacements somewhat interfered with his ability to eat and made him feel self-conscious. The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff that the injury was objectively manifested (i.e., loss of a tooth), and that the injury involved an important body function, i.e., eating. However, the injury did not interfere with the plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. In this regard, the court stated, “Plaintiff could still eat solid foods with the temporary replacement, he just had to remove it while eating or avoid some foods, like sticky candy, or cut other foods into bite-sized pieces. The same is true for the permanent replacement. Plaintiff could still eat, but cut some foods into bite-sized pieces and chewed predominantly on one side of his mouth. He limited some of his activities because of concern about reinjuring his mouth, but he was able to finish school and continue his employment. Therefore, while the injury did affect his life to a limited extent, it did not significantly affect his ability to lead a normal life.”
The Court of Appeals also noted that, in granting summary disposition for defendant, the trial court had incorrectly applied standards enunciated in DiFranco v Pickard. In this regard, the court stated, “The Legislature overturned the Supreme Court’s DiFranco decision by codifying the tort threshold injury standards of Cassidy v McGovern, overruled by DiFranco. Therefore, the trial court erred to the extent it relied on DiFranco in reaching its decision. Because the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function is the same as that adopted in Cassidy, it is appropriate to refer to Cassidy in cases decided thereunder in deciding this case.”
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court of Appeals held the trial court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.
