Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 213378; Published
Judges McDonald, Neff, and Smolenski; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 240 Mich App 504; 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:
The May case [Item No. 2117), returned to the Court of Appeals after remand and the court issued a published per curiam opinion on April 18, 2000. This Opinion is very short and does not provide any additional useful information. It simply stated that after remand, the trial court changed its original finding that plaintiff had suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function, finding instead, that there was no objective manifestation of the injury aside from subjective complaints of pain. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that even if the plaintiff had an objectively manifested injury, there was no genuine material factual dispute regarding whether the injury affected plaintiffs general ability to lead his normal life. The Court of Appeals decision does not set forth any of the specific factual findings that the judge relied upon to reach his conclusion that there was no material factual dispute. The Court of Appeals stated only, "The trial court properly compared plaintiff's lifestyle before and after the accident in determining whether a factual dispute existed with respect to the extent of plaintiff's injury."
