Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 213918; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Hood, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Difranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Difranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion deals with a tort claim alleging serious impairment of body function that was filed before the 1995 threshold amendments became effective. Therefore, the court held that the question of serious impairment of body function was to be analyzed solely under the Supreme Court's decision in DiFranco v Pickard. Applying DiFranco, the Court of Appeals affirmed a bench trial determination that plaintiffs injuries constituted serious impairment of body function. The court held that in reviewing findings of fact made by a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact, reversal is only indicated if the reviewing court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." In this case, the court found no such clear error.
The injuries involved in this case consisted of serious injuries to plaintiffs back which impaired his ability to move his back and precipitated night tremors in his legs. Plaintiff was disabled from work for several months and thereafter returned with specific weight restrictions. The plaintiffs back injury resulted in muscle spasms, impaired range of motion and strength and the prospect of increasing difficulty with back movement. Plaintiff also suffered a closed head injury resulting in some diminished capacity. The court found that on this record, the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, did not commit error in finding plaintiffs injuries constitute serious impairment of body function.
