Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 215052; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Hood, and Neff; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding the propriety of summary disposition on plaintiffs tort claim of serious impairment of body function under the amended version of section 3135, the court remanded the case back to the trial court for specific factual findings as required by May v Sommerfield [Item No. 2117]. The injuries involved in this case were described only as "injuries that caused her low back pain." The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition but did not make specific factual findings as required by May v Sommerfield. In this regard, the court stated:
"A trial court cannot determine whether a plaintiff [has] suffered a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law without first making the factual findings required under MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i) or(ii)."... we find that on the basis of our recent decisions in May, supra, and Churchman v Rickerson, [Item No. 2130], the trial court must enunciate its factual findings in accordance with MCL 500.3135(2)(a) before deciding the issue of serious impairment as a matter of law. Such findings are necessary for this Court to determine whether the grant of summary disposition is proper...."
Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the lower court with instructions to file factual findings with the Court of Appeals within sixty days of the date of the opinion. The Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction.
