Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 83650; Unpublished
Judges Gillis, MacKenzie, and Robinson; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment of body function. It was undisputed that plaintiff suffered an undisplaced fracture of the right scapula, a small cortical break in her second left rib, and a saddle fracture in four areas of her pubic bone. She was hospitalized for 13 days, including three days in intensive care. Upon discharge from the hospital, plaintiff was prescribed a walker which she claimed she used for five months, and which her doctor verified she used for two months. Plaintiff’s fractures healed themselves within four months, and within nine weeks of the accident, plaintiff had an excellent range-of-motion in her arms, shoulder and hip. These injuries were undisputed by defendant. In addition, plaintiff had other injuries which she claimed, and which defendant disputed, including a knee injury and a breast tumor. Plaintiff also claimed that she had continuing pain in her shoulder which restricted her ability to perform housework.
Based upon the undisputed injuries, plaintiff moved for directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The trial court denied this motion, and the jury returned a verdict finding no serious impairment of body function. In reliance upon the decision in Cassidy, and without reference to the DiFranco decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and ruled that plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict was correctly denied. According to the Court of Appeals, plaintiff’s injuries were insufficient to be serious as defined by Cassidy.
