Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 175097; Unpublished
Judges White, Hoekstra, and Warshawsky; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiffs claim of serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement, concluding that no reasonable person could ever conclude that plaintiffs injuries crossed the tort threshold. The evidence in this case disclosed that plaintiff was taken to an emergency room immediately after the accident. The treatment records revealed "a small laceration under the right eye, small area of edema over the left eyebrow, small laceration bridge of nose, contusion to forehead, contusion to right upper eye lid." All x-rays were negative. The plaintiff was discharged to home with no medication prescribed. The plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment subsequent to the date of the accident because he claimed he had to go through V.A. and had never been given a treatment date. Although plaintiff missed six days of work, he testified that he was not precluded from performing any of his normal activities and only had headache and knee pain "once in a while." As to plaintiffs claim of closed head injury, the only evidence was his wife's testimony that he occasionally "flew off the handle." In concluding that defendant was entitled to summary disposition on the threshold question, the court stated:
"We agree with the circuit court that reasonable minds could not conclude plaintiff suffered either serious impairment of a body function or permanent serious disfigurement under §3135. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of an impairment of a body function or any serious disfigurement. While we agree with plaintiff that his failure to obtain medical treatment is not dispositive, plaintiff has never elaborated on his injuries beyond the testimony that he had pain in both knees and headaches 'once in a while.' His claim of closed head injury is supported only by his wife's testimony, that his wife sometimes said he flew off the handle too much. Most important, plaintiff testified that his activities were 'not really' affected by his injuries. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err by ruling defendant was entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law."
