Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 217522; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Holbrook, and Zahra; 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)]
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In this unpublished unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition of plaintiffs tort claim alleging serious impairment of body function. The injuries suffered by plaintiff in this case included contusions and a sprain to his right knee, a concussion, and a laceration to the back of the head. Referring to the earlier decision in May v Sommerfield [Item No. 2117], the court stated that before making a determination whether a plaintiff has suffered serious impairment of body function as a matter of law under the amended version of section 3135, "a court is required to make findings as to whether a factual dispute exists concerning the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries." In this case, the defendants conceded "that plaintiff's injuries were as represented." Nevertheless, defendants argued that those injuries did not affect plaintiffs general ability to lead his normal life. The court agreed with defendants and stated,
"Although plaintiff had objectively manifested injuries that impaired an important body function, the court found that the impairment did not affect plaintiff's general ability to lead his normal life. Where plaintiff remained able to lead an active life, including running and playing baseball, there is no showing that the court erred as a matter of law in finding that plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function."
