Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 74626; Published
Judges Beasley, Gillis, and Martin; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 140 Mich App 712; 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 is the second time this case has been before the Court of Appeals (see Item Nos. 581 and 676). The central issue is whether plaintiff sustained a serious impairment of body function. The case was originally tried before Cassidy resulting in a verdict of no cause for action on the first appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that the verdict should be overturned for the reason that plaintiff had sustained a threshold injury as a matter of law.
While that decision was on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Cassidy decision was issued resulting in this case being remanded to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with Cassidy. On remand, the circuit judge refused to disrupt the jury verdict and held that plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute serious impairment as a matter of law.
In this appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that under the Supreme Court's decision in Cassidy, plaintiff’s injuries constituted serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s injuries were undisputed. She sustained six rib fractures, a fracture of the right clavicle and a fracture of the small toe of the right foot Plaintiff was hospitalized for four days and was thereafter unable to perform any household chores for a period of three months. Plaintiff also complained of difficulty breathing as a result of the accident However, because the defendant disputed the validity of plaintiff’s breathing complaints, the Court of Appeals chose not to consider that aspect of plaintiff s injuries in determining whether the threshold had been met The court held that inasmuch as the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries were not subject to a material factual dispute, the trial court was required to decide the issue as a matter of law. In finding for the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals stated:
"We conclude that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s injuries were of a severity such as to constitute a serious impairment of body function. . . .Plaintiff’s injuries constituted broken bones, and were thus objectively manifested. Further, while they were not permanent, by the defendants' own admission they were of a nature which required bed rest in order to heal properly. Plaintiff was unable to perform ordinary household chores for a period of time, and did not return to work until February, 1977. While the injuries were not of the severity suffered by the plaintiff in Cassidy, we believe that they were sufficiently serious to meet the threshold requirement contained in §3135."
