Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 89323; Unpublished
Judges MacKenzie, Bronson, and Benson; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a trial court order of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment. In this pre-DiFranco decision, the Court found that plaintiff’s injury had not been shown to significantly affect her ability to lead a normal life. Plaintiff’s injuries essentially constituted back pain with some limitation in motion in the cervical spine region. She claimed that she experienced severe pain if she is required to stand or sit for an extended period of time, she suffers sexual dysfunction, and had to discontinue her participation in aerobics, volleyball and dancing. The Court found these difficulties did not constitute interference with plaintiff’s normal lifestyle in a significant way as required by the Cassidy standard.
The Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that discovery was not complete and that the entry of summary disposition was premature. The Court held that in such situations, discovery need not be complete, the question is merely whether further discovery stands a fair chance of uncovering factual support for plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff had failed to explain how further discovery would disclose additional facts in support of her claim.
