Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 102927; Unpublished
Judges Weaver, Holbrook, and Brennan; Unanimous; 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)]
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict of no cause in favor of defendant on the serious impairment of body function issue.
The Court of Appeals held that, on review of a trial judge's decision denying such a motion, deference must be given to the trial judge's decision since the judge, having heard the witnesses, is uniquely qualified to judge the jury's assessment of their credibility.
Here, the Court of Appeals (without specific analysis) found sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that the plaintiff’s injury did not result in the serious impairment of a body function. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs also contended that it would be inequitable to assess mediation sanctions against plaintiff because the threshold for non-economic loss under the No-Fault Act changed dramatically between the time of mediation and trial based upon the intervening decision in DiFranco v Pickard. In affirming mediation sanctions, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiffs had cited no authority in support of this argument, and the court was not moved by plaintiffs' "if we knew then what we know now" argument. Therefore, mediation sanctions were affirmed.
