Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 74636; Published
Judges Brennan, R.B. Burns, and Coleman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 137 Mich App 715; 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:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion regarding serious impairment of body function is a continuation of the litigation summarized in items 401 and 676.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling on summary judgment and held that under the facts of this case, plaintiff’s simple fractured clavicle was not a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. After remand by the Supreme Court, the trial court ruled that plaintiff’s injury did satisfy the threshold requirements and awarded damages in the amount of $3,000. In reversing the trial court, the Court did not articulate and new rules or standards regarding threshold injuries. It reviewed several of the threshold cases previously decided by other panels of the Court of Appeals. In doing so, it noted that the Cassidy decision had been interpreted to require an impairment of an important body function, an impairment which was serious and an injury which was objectively manifested. The Court held that plaintiff’s injuries in this case were objectively manifested. However, the reversal was apparently based on a lack of seriousness of the injury. The Court stated:
"The trial court in this case found that plaintiff fractured his right clavicle. This is the only injury of any consequence to plaintiff. No other injuries were manifested or relied upon. (There were some bruises and abrasions.) There were no complications.
"Plaintiff’s arm was immobilized for a short period of time, about one month. This disrupted his sporting activities and was inconvenient and deterred plaintiff from normal activities for the month plaintiff wore the brace cast (not plaster). He had a full recovery.
"The injury here was objectively manifested. The proper functioning of a shoulder and arm is an important function. There was no showing the hand on the arm in question did not function. There was no showing that plaintiff could not eat or had trouble eating. It would appear that the fracture was not a compound fracture. The fracture here did not have any permanent or long-range effect; the brace cast was on only one "month."
