Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. i01567; Unpublished
Judges McDonald, Doctoroff, and Neff; 2-1; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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 2-1 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a summary disposition entered in favor of defendant on the serious impairment of body function issue. The original claim had been filed against Wojcik and the City of Detroit as defendants. Wojcik moved for summary disposition claiming plaintiffs' injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function under Cassidy v McGovern. The trial court entered summary disposition on February 21,1986, but no order was entered making an express determination that the judgment was final, there being no just reason for delay as required by MCR 2.604(A).
Ultimately, summary disposition was entered in favor of the remaining defendant, City of Detroit, on June 15,1987, and a final order dismissing the entire case was entered on July 20,1987.
The Court of Appeals reversed the summary disposition as to defendant Wojcik, in light of the intervening decision in DiFranco v Pickard, and remanded for a determination of defendant Wojcik's motion under the parameters set forth in that decision.
Judge Doctoroff dissented, stating that the limited retroactivity of the DiFranco decision did not apply to this case, since the DiFranco decision did not require that a "final order" be entered, but merely required that DiFranco must be applied in cases in which summary disposition "enters" after the date of the decision. Here, the entry of summary disposition occurred before DiFranco.
[Editor's Note: See Item No. 1218, Cleveland v Home, in which the Court of Appeals denied limited retroactivity in a similar case.]
