Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 88944; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Shepherd, and Allen; 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 (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
Important Body Function 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed an order of summary disposition on the issues of serious impairment and permanent serious disfigurement in light of the DiFranco decision.
Plaintiff was injured when he exited from a city bus and was struck by a bicyclist. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his eye and teeth. He required 50 stitches in the area of his eye, and was left with a visible two-inch scar in the area of one eye. Because of additional, internal scarring, the eye continues to droop and water some five years after the accident. In addition, plaintiff’s four-front teeth were broken in the collision and ultimately had to be removed. Plaintiff was fitted with a partial plate, but continues having trouble talking and eating. Plaintiff testified that the plate fits poorly and falls out if he keeps talking. He also has difficulty eating with the plate.
The trial court found, as a matter of law, based upon the Cassidy guidelines, that plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute serious impairment of body function. However, the trial court found as a matter of law that the loss of teeth did constitute permanent serious disfigurement.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in light of the recent DiFranco decision, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court noted that under the DiFranco decision, the requirements of objective manifestation and impairment of an important body function had been eliminated. The third requirement of "seriousness" has also been "liberalized" with the DiFranco court's express rejection of any notion that a serious impairment must be "catastrophic." The Court of Appeals held that the trial court, in finding no serious impairment of body function, ruled correctly under Cassidy. However, under DiFranco, reasonable minds could as to the seriousness of the impairment, and therefore the trial court's ruling on this issue was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. With respect to the claim of permanent serious disfigurement, the Court noted that DiFranco does not directly address this alternative threshold, but the Court of Appeals felt that DiFranco's comments on the term seriousness were generally applicable to cases involving disfigurement. The Court felt that the replacement of plaintiff s four front teeth with a plate was not a catastrophic blow to his appearance. However, considering the full spectrum of plaintiff s life, the court felt that reasonable minds could differ as to whether plaintiff’s injury constitutes permanent, serious disfigurement. However, rather than affirming the trial court's order of summary disposition on this issue, the Court found that the issue of permanent, serious disfigurement was a jury question in this case. Under DiFranco, "serious in relation to permanent serious disfigurement is a jury question except in the most extreme cases." On this basis, the trial court's decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
