Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 157705; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Bandstra, and 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff s tort liability claim for non-economic damages. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that left the roadway and struck a tree. Plaintiff sustained a closed head injury in the collision and filed suit against the driver and owner of the vehicle. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants on the grounds that while plaintiff sustained an impairment of body function, reasonable minds could not differ that the impairment was not serious.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that the issue of whether an injured person has sustained a serious impairment of body function is a question of fact, provided, however, that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is such that reasonable minds could differ as to the answer. In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision that reasonable minds could not differ that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious impairment of bodily function
The Court of Appeals noted that the plaintiff had presented "little evidence" of the nature and extent of his injuries, or the impact of those injuries on his ability to lead a normal life. The Court of Appeals reached this conclusion even though the plaintiff had been hospitalized for three days as a result of the accident, and was restricted from work for a one month period. The court noted that the plaintiff "was given no specific course of treatment following discharge from the hospital" and had consulted with his personal physician on only one occasion, one week after his discharge from the hospital, with complaints of headaches, memory problems concerning the accident itself, and sleeping difficulties. Plaintiff also consulted with a neurologist, one month after discharge, who had concluded that plaintiffs overall mental status was not significantly compromised. Despite this evidence, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision that reasonable minds could not conclude that plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function.
