Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No 81193; Published
Judges Kelly, Allen, and Shuster; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 148 Mich App 371; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion; the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict obtained by plaintiff for noneconomic losses sustained in a motor vehicle collision.
Plaintiff’s injuries consisted of six fractured ribs, cuts, soreness and bruises. She was hospitalized for three days because of her physician's fear that one of the fractured ribs might puncture a lung. Upon release from the hospital, plaintiff wore a rib belt and neck brace and was unable to perform any normal activities for a period of about two months. As of the date of trial, this 56 year old plaintiff continued to experience limitations in reaching, turning and lifting and must resort to pain medication as needed. She returned to her employment three months following the accident.
Defendant raised the issue of serious impairment of body function as a motion for summary judgment prior to trial. This motion was denied, as well as a subsequent motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s proofs. Defendant appeals the denial of its motion for directed verdict.
The Court of Appeals noted that there is an element of confusion regarding the nature and effect of rulings under Cassidy, particularly where, as here, plaintiff establishes serious impairment and is allowed to proceed to trial. The court stated that a ruling in plaintiff’s favor on a serious impairment issue means nothing more than that plaintiff may proceed to trial with a traditional negligence claim.
In this case, the court noted that the injuries sustained by plaintiff were very similar to the injuries sustained by plaintiff in Range v Gorosh (Item No. 804) where plaintiff’s injuries were considered sufficient to meet the threshold. Therefore, the trial court in this case did not err as a matter of law in concluding that plaintiff had met the threshold requirement of serious impairment of body function.
The Court of Appeals also denied defendant's claim on appeal that plaintiff had improperly and deliberately injected the issue of insurance into the trial proceedings. The Court of Appeals noted that defendant's attorney had first referred in closing argument to "Michigan's no-fault law," and in rebuttal, plaintiff had responded to the point made by referring to the "no-fault insurance law."
