Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 73148; Published
Judges Shepherd, Brennan, and Jobes; 2-1; Opinion by Judge Brennan
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 149 Mich App 208; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 Opinion written by Judge Brennan, with Judge Jobes concurring in the result only, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict of no cause for action on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. The trial court ruled that there was a disputed question of fact regarding jury resolution and thus submitted the threshold question to the jury after the defendant had admitted negligence.
The plaintiff’s injury consisted of a broken arm which fully healed after four months. Specifically, the x-rays revealed that plaintiff’s fracture was a comminuted spiral fracture of the mid-shaft of her right humerus. Plaintiff was not placed in a plaster cast, nor was she hospitalized. Her arm was placed in a sling which did not restrict movement of her shoulder. Plaintiff returned to work without restrictions four months after the accident and testified that she had no functional difficulty thereafter.
Judge Brennan, writing for himself only, would hold that plaintiff’s injury did not, as a matter of law, constitute a serious impairment of body function. However, in light of the fact that the jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant on the threshold issue, the failure to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant was "harmless error."
Judge Shepherd dissented. He would find that plaintiff’s injury constituted a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted and the issue should not have been submitted to a jury. Judge Shepherd noted that plaintiff was completely unable to use her right arm for the first 16 days because it was strapped to her body. For another 16 days thereafter, her ability to use the fractured arm was quite limited because of the sling. For several weeks thereafter, plaintiff had limited functional use of the arm and was not able to fully use the arm until four months after the accident. Judge Shepherd stated that in his belief, "the undisputed proofs indicate a serious, although temporary, impairment." He stated that the impaired body function involved in this case was an important one which affected the plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life. Although the detrimental effect on plaintiff’s lifestyle was not permanent or long term, it was quite severe. He stated, "She had no significant use of the arm for more than a month, and restricted use thereafter."
Judge Jobes concurred in the result only.
