Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 83521; Published
Judges Cynar, Wahls, and Borradaile; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 155 Mich App 152; 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 affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff’s major injury was a serious soft tissue sprain-like injury of her right ankle. She also suffered a bruise on her scalp and a bruise on the left knee. Plaintiff’s right ankle was severely swollen and discolored. Initially, she was fitted with a short leg plaster splint which she wore for two weeks which was subsequently followed up with the application of a short leg cast. Plaintiff remained in the hospital for approximately two weeks after her accident. She wore the short leg cast for approximately four weeks during which time she walked on crutches. She also continued physical therapy for several months. Three months after the accident, she had no further walking difficulties, other than occasional pain when she over stressed her ankle. After this initial three month period, plaintiff testified that there was nothing that she was prevented from doing because of the injury to her ankle. The trial court held that plaintiff’s injury to her ankle was an impairment of an important body function. However, the trial court did not find the impairment to be serious. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
With regard to procedural matters dealing with summary disposition of threshold issues, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant's motion for summary disposition on the threshold issue did not have to be accompanied with supporting affidavits if the defendant is relying on plaintiff’s own deposition testimony and interrogatory answers and defendant has conceded that there is no genuine issue of material fact as the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries. Thus, in that situation, failure to file supporting affidavits did not render summary disposition improper.
