Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 95312; Unpublished
Judges Sullivan, Wahls, and Cavanagh; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings a case in which the trial court had entered summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on the issue of permanent serious disfigurement
At trial, the court had found that a scar on plaintiff’s forehead of approximately 1 1/2" in length, located near her hairline on the right side of her head, and which was partially obscured by hair, was sufficient to allow entry of partial summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on the issue of permanent serious disfigurement.
Upon leave granted, the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court's decision on August 25, 1986 was made under the Cassidy v McGovern standards, and that during the pendency of the appeal, Supreme Court decided DiFranco v Pickard, substantially changing the standards applicable. Under Cassidy, the court was constrained to rule as a matter of law whether the threshold requirements had been met. Under the DiFranco decision, the Supreme Court held that "if reasonable minds can differ as to whether the plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function, the issue must be submitted to the jury, even if the evidentiary facts are undisputed."
Although DiFranco dealt with serious impairment of body function, the Supreme Court's analysis in that case was held to apply equally to the issue of permanent serious disfigurement. Thus, the limited retroactivity rule set forth in DiFranco applied by analogy to this case, and since an issue concerning the proper interpretation of the statutory phrase "permanent serious disfigurement" had been raised on appeal, the DiFranco rules applied to this case. In reviewing the evidence, the court on appeal held that the seriousness of plaintiff’s disfigurement, as well as its permanency, should be submitted to the jury because the disfigurement clearly is not what one would find in "the most extreme cases" and because it does not fall into the extreme at which reasonable minds could not differ. Owens v City of Detroit, 163 Mich App 134 (1987). Therefore, the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
