Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 209686; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Saad, and Collins; 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In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function arising from a motor vehicle accident on August 31,1995 was governed by the amendments to section 3135 that were effective July 26,1996, because plaintiff’s claim was not filed until September 6, 1996, and the legislative amendment to the No-Fault Act was retroactively effective to actions filed after the effective date of those changes.
The amendments in 1995 specifically defined a serious impairment of a body function and stated that such amendments would be effective 120 days after March 28, 1996. Because plaintiff filed his complaint on September 6, 1996, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s claim was governed by the amendments.
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s claim that the amendments could not be applied retroactively because they abrogated vested rights. Here, the statutory amendment is "procedural" in that it does not create or abolish substantive rights, but rather assigns the trial court the role of determining whether the plaintiff has alleged facts which establish a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement, and further clarifies the meaning of the term “serious impairment of body function.” The trial court did not err in applying the amendment retroactively.
The court further upheld the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function under the amended statute. The court held that plaintiff had not established, under 3135(7), that he had a serious impairment of body function objectively manifested, involving an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life. In this case, the court noted that plaintiff had failed to seek immediate medical treatment after the accident, he successfully continued his career post-accident, had pay raises and good evaluations, continued frequent attendance at a gym, did not need prescribed medications other than Motrin and Flexeril shortly after the accident, and failed to seek medical services between December 11, 1995, and August 7, 1996.
The court held that this evidence did not rise to the level of a serious impairment of a body function.
