Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 80928; Published
Judges Holbrook, Beasley, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 147 Mich App 716; 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 summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries to her neck, low back and left hand. Plaintiff complained that these injuries resulted in a curtailment of some of plaintiff’s activities. For example, plaintiff was unable to play cards for long periods of time, had difficulty in cooking and had a reduction in her social life. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiff’s injuries were not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of serious impairment of body function. The court did agree with plaintiff that the ability to move a back is an important body function. Moreover, the court stated, "We would also agree that movement of a neck and hand are also important body functions. However, we do not find any impairment of plaintiff s to be serious. Seriousness is judged by the effect of the injury on a person's ability to lead a normal life."
The court also noted that defendant's motion for summary judgment was not procedurally defective because the affidavit filed in support thereof was not based on personal knowledge. The court also noted that the affidavit of plaintiff s treating physician in opposition to defendant's motion was inadequate and did not raise sufficient facts wherein it merely stated the "legal conclusion" that plaintiff’s injury was a serious impairment of body function.
