Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 83946; Published
Judges Maher, T. M. Burns, and R. H. Bell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 153 Mich App 180; 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)]
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)]
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 order of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims on the issue of serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement The accident occurred on April 26,1983, and the trial court dismissed the case on February 8,1985. Plaintiff suffered a chest injury in the accident which was diagnosed immediately after the accident as a "cardiac contusion." Plaintiff also suffered lacerations, including a jagged cut to the right eyelid. Testimony by plaintiff’s doctor indicated that the results of a hospital electrocardiogram were "not of any significance" and later electrocardiograms taken one-and-one-half months and one year after the accident were completely normal. Plaintiff testified that he was told to "take it easy" after the accident. Plaintiff was a college student before and after the accident, and testified that he did not take a summer job or involve himself in strenuous activity following his injury. No other testimony or evidence was given which would indicate that plaintiff’s lifestyle was otherwise affected. Based upon the evidence presented, the Court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that the injuries he suffered were serious.
Plaintiff also alleged permanent serious disfigurement as a consequence of the facial scar. Based upon the testimony of the plaintiff, that people who did not know him would not "really notice" the scar, the Court concluded that plaintiff’s scar is not a permanent serious disfigurement.
