Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 213378; Published
Judges McDonald, Neff, and Smolenski; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Smolenski
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 239 Mich App 197; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
This published Opinion, written by Judge Smolenski, is the first appellate court decision interpreting the new threshold provisions of 1995 PA 222. The plaintiff in this case sustained an undefined arm injury when his car was struck by a pickup truck. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary disposition on plaintiffs threshold claim, ruling that, although plaintiff had sustained an "objectively manifested impairment of an important body function," plaintiff failed to satisfy the threshold because his impairment did not affect his ability to lead his normal life.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court committed error when it granted defendant's motion for summary disposition because the trial judge did not make specific findings required by the summary disposition provisions of § 3135(2)(a). Specifically, this section permits a trial court to decide threshold issues as a matter of law only "if the court finds either of the following: (i) There is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries, (ii) There is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries, but the dispute is not material to the determination as to whether the person has suffered a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement."
In ruling that the trial judge did not proceed appropriately under this section, the court stated:
"Here, while the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant as a matter of law under MCR 2.116(C)(10), it failed to make the factual findings to support its judgment as required by § 3135(2)(a). We cannot decide the merits of plaintiff's appeal absent these required findings. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings."
In remanding the case for appropriate findings regarding the propriety of summary disposition relief, the Court of Appeals instructed the trial judge to take certain things into consideration with regard to specific elements of the threshold. In this regard, the court stated:
"On remand, we instruct the trial court to make findings as to whether a factual dispute exists on the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a 'serious impairment of body function,' considering 'the nature and extent' of plaintiff's injuries consistent with § 3 J 35(2) (a) (i)-(ii). In determining the 'nature' of plaintiffs injuries, the trial court should make appropriate findings as to whether there is a factual dispute that plaintiff has an 'objectively manifested' impairment, and, if so, whether there is a factual dispute that 'an important body function' is impaired. In determining the 'extent' of plaintiff's injuries, the trial court should make appropriate findings as to whether there is a factual dispute that the impairment affects plaintiffs 'general ability to lead his... normal life.'"
In reaching its holding, the Court of Appeals made a significant statement regarding the intent of the threshold provisions of § 3135 of the no-fault act, and in the process, cited the Supreme Court's earlier decision in DiFranco v Pickard as support thereof. In this regard, the court stated:
"Here, in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the trial court concluded in its written judgment that plaintiff's injury did not meet the 'threshold' requirement of MCL 500.3135 .... The 'threshold' to which the trial court referred is presumably the requirement set forth in MCR 500.3135(1) . .. that 'a person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.' This statutory threshold is designed to eliminate suits based on clearly minor injuries and those that do not seriously affect the ability of the body to function. See DiFranco v Pickard, 42 7 Mich 32,60(1986)."
The decision contained no other discussion or citation to any other appellate court opinion regarding the threshold, including the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Cassidy v McGovern. The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court to file its findings within 30 days of the date of the opinion and, in so doing, retained jurisdiction. [See Item No. 2134 for the Court of Appeals decision after remand.]
The court also ruled that the recent no-fault amendments (1995 P. A. 222) apply to accidents occurring before the effective date of the amendments but not put into suit until after the effective date.
