Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82995; Published
Judges Burns, Holbrook, Jr., and Payant; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 153 Mich App 337; 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 unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a circuit court decision affirming a district court order granting summary judgment on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff’s motorcycle was involved in a collision with a truck driven by defendant. Plaintiff alleged serious impairment of body function, permanent significant scarring, and an impairment of earning capacity. Plaintiff’s injury consisted of a "hematoma of the right leg which required drainage, scarring, a cracked bone in his leg, lumps, bruises, abrasions, a lower back injury and a hip injury." Defendant moved for summary judgment claiming plaintiff’s injuries, as a matter of law, did not meet the threshold requirement for recovery under §3135. Plaintiff countered the motion with an affidavit stating that he needed a cane to walk, that he had been required to use crutches for 4 to 6 months after the accident, that as a result of his consumption of pain killers, he was caused to suffer from gastritis, and that he also suffered from lower back injury.
After the district court held that "this is one of those cases that the Supreme Court meant was not to be brought under the No-Fault Act," plaintiff appealed to circuit court claiming a material issue of fact existed as to the extent of his injuries. The circuit court held that the district judge's decision was not clearly erroneous and affirmed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court reversibly erred by applying a "clearly erroneous" standard of review. The question of whether there is a serious impairment of a body function is not a question of fact, but rather a question of law, and therefore, the circuit court should have reviewed the record before it to determine whether, as a matter of law, there was a genuine issue of fact. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff has presented a question of fact material to the threshold issue as to his ability to walk. The case was remanded for trial on that issue.
