Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 75690; Published
Judges Wahls, Maher, and Noble; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 144 Mich App 485; 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 a jury verdict for defendant on the issues of serious impairment of body function/permanent serious disfigurement and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for JNOV on the threshold issue. Plaintiff in this case sustained lacerations on both hands and his right leg. The laceration on plaintiff’s right hand required 12 stitches to close while that on his left required none. Plaintiff’s leg injury required more than five stitches to repair, and two plastic drains were inserted in plaintiff’s right leg for about three and a half weeks to assist in healing. Plaintiff required the assistance of a cane to walk for about one and a half months after the accident A witness for plaintiff testified that plaintiff still walked with a noticeable limp and still used the cane occasionally a year and a half after the accident Plaintiff testified that the lacerations on plaintiff’s right hand and right leg caused some permanent nerve damage. However, the nerve damage affected plaintiff’s sensory rather than motor functions, and only involved a small area of numbness and altered sensation on the outside of plaintiff’s right thumb and on plaintiff’s right leg. Although plaintiff testified that the injury to his right hand had "changed" his handwriting, there was no evidence that this affected plaintiff’s ability to use his hand in his normal daily functions.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s injuries did not, as a matter of law, constitute a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement With respect to the latter claim, the court stated: "We infer that a threshold question as to the existence of permanent serious disfigurement is to be resolved similarly" [by the court where there is no material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of the injury]. Even though there was evidence in the record that there was some permanent impairment of sensory nerve functions, the court, in ruling that this was inadequate, stated, "An objectively manifested permanent impairment of an important body function, the sense of touch, was shown. However, the evidence of the impact of this impairment on plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life was insufficient. . . ." With regard to the impairment of motor functions in the plaintiff’s leg, the court stated, "Objectively manifested impairments of motor functions involving use of the hands or the right leg were also shown, although most of the impairment of plaintiff's leg motor functions was temporary. Again, the evidence of the impact of these impairments on plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life was insufficient to warrant a conclusion that these requirements must be characterized as serious as a matter of law."
The court also stated, "Whether an injury amounts to a permanent serious disfigurement depends on its physical characteristics rather than its effect on the plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life." In this case, there was evidence that "medical treatment could reduce the extent of scarring." Furthermore, the photographic evidence contained in the record demonstrates that the scars were not serious disfigurements.
