Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 209761; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, O'Connell, and R.B. Burns; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals refused to disturb a jury verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s third-party bodily injury liability claim alleging plaintiff had sustained a serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement.
The case was filed prior to the 1995 amendment, and therefore controlled by the Supreme Court decision in DiFranco v Pickard [Item No. 978]. The court noted that,
"The present case was fraught with conflicting medical opinions and diagnoses regarding plaintiff's condition which required the jury to assess the credibility of several doctors and plaintiffs .... On this record, there were clearly factual issues for the jury and reasonable minds could have differed as to whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function. Moreover, because issues of credibility are within the jury's province, and where the evidence did not manifestly favor plaintiff, we conclude that the jury's verdict on this issue is not against the great weight of the evidence."
The Court of Appeals also refused to disturb the jury's verdict on the basis of improper remarks by defense counsel during closing argument. The plaintiff did not object to defense counsel's comments, did not request curative instructions, and did not move for a mistrial at the time the comments were made. Furthermore, the court's general instructions with regard to sympathy, the irrelevancy of insurance coverage and comments of counsel cured any substantial injustice created by defense counsel's remarks.
