Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274798; Unpublished
Judges White, Saad, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of a serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained an ankle fracture for which she underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals first noted that plaintiff returned to work a little more than a month after the accident and that she had no doctor-imposed restrictions on her activities. Moreover, the court determined that plaintiff failed to support her claim that the five-inch scar on her ankle constituted a permanent serious disfigurement. In so holding, the court noted that the scar is partially obscured by a pre-existing tattoo and that the scar had faded since the original pictures were taken. In this regard, the court stated:
“Under Kreiner, the Court correctly found that plaintiff failed to meet the threshold because her injuries did not affect her general ability to lead a normal life. In support of his motion for summary disposition, defendant presented evidence [deleted text] that plaintiff continued to lead her normal life following the accident. In her deposition testimony, plaintiff testified that she began working a job as a cook a little over a month after the accident and that she had no doctor-imposed restrictions on her activities after the summer of 2004. . . . Plaintiff further asserts that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition because the scar on her ankle constitutes a permanent serious disfigurement as a matter of law. . . . Here, plaintiff has a vertical scar along the outside of her right ankle. Both plaintiff’s counsel and the trial court described it as being approximately five inches in length. The photograph submitted by plaintiff shows that the scar is partially obscured by a preexisting tattoo that circles her ankle. After examining the scar in person, the trial court noted that it appeared to have faded since the picture was taken. The photograph combined with the description given by the trial court provides an adequate record for this Court to determine as a matter of law whether plaintiff’s scar meets the no-fault threshold. Based on the record, we find that reasonable minds must agree that plaintiff did not suffer a permanent serious disfigurement within the meaning of MCL 500.3135.”
