Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 195390; Unpublished
Judges White, Cavanagh, and Reilly; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a bench trial judgment of no cause of action on the issue of serious impairment of body function, and also affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs motion to adjourn trial.
The opinion does not provide extensive detail regarding the nature of the injury. A claim was made that plaintiff has sustained a serious impairment of bodily injury, and in support, plaintiff referred to the report of one of her physicians. On appeal, affirming the trial court judgment, the Court of Appeals noted that the doctor's report did not definitively state that plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function in the accident, and referred to "considerable pre-existent medical problems," and contained the statement that there was "no way that one can ascertain whether or not this motor vehicle accident itself caused any neurological sequelae." Based upon other medical records in the reports of plaintiff s doctor, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
Further, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant an adjournment based upon plaintiffs request due to her inability to travel. The court noted that only one physician indicated that the plaintiff should not travel, and other physicians had not restricted travel. There was no abuse of discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for adjournment.
