Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 106973; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Sawyer, and Neff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As of Matter Of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter Of Law [§3135(1)(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s threshold claim of permanent serious disfigurement. The court noted that under the holding in DiFranco v Pickard, the question of whether a plaintiffs injury amounts to a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement, is a question that must be submitted to the trier of fact whenever a reasonable mind could differ as to the answer. However, in this case, the trial court found that no reasonable mind could differ as to whether plaintiff’s "small hardly discernible tissue scar immediately below plaintiff’s lip" was a permanent serious disfigurement. In so holding, the court stated:
"After reviewing the lower court record, including the photographs of plaintiff, plaintiffs deposition testimony, and plaintiffs testimony at the hearing on defendant's motion for summary disposition, we are convinced that, under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We do not believe that plaintiffs hardly discernible scar is the type of injury for which the Legislature intended to allow recovery when it established the threshold of permanent serious disfigurement."
