Oakland County Circuit Court; Case No. 1997-547290-NI; Unpublished
Honorable Nanci J. Grant
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 written Opinion by Judge Grant, the court granted reconsideration of a prior grant of summary disposition on the threshold issue in a case involving a wrist injury which plaintiff claimed created an impairment that satisfied the amended statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, in that it affects "the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life."
Judge Grant noted that her prior ruling was based on the proposition that the statutory language of 3135(1) was a codification of the Supreme Court's decision in Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich 483 (1992) in that court's reference to serious impairment of body function and the “effect of the injury on the person's general ability to live a normal life.” Judge Grant noted, however, that the amended statutory definition of serious impairment of body function is defined as an impairment "that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life.” She noted that this change in the statute from “a normal life” to "his or her normal life” suggests that the Legislature intends "serious impairment of body function” to include an analysis of how the injury affected the plaintiff’s ability to work or perform his normal activities. Based upon this change, the court found that the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to support a finding that the wrist injury affected plaintiff’s ability to lead his normal life, as the evidence indicated that he was unable to perform his job in the same capacity and manner as he was before and unable to participate in hobbies and recreational activities. Therefore, the court's prior grant of a motion for summary disposition on the serious impairment threshold was vacated and the case was reinstated.
