Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 71602; Published
Judges Allen, Brennan, and Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 134 Mich App 773; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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 affirmed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of defendant that plaintiff did not sustain serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement under §3135 of the Act There apparently was no disputed issue of fact and both parties essentially agreed that the issue was a matter of law for the court.
In disposing of the threshold question, this short opinion did not contain any new interpretive language regarding the Supreme Court's opinion in Cassidy v McGovern or set forth any "new rules" with respect to the application of Cassidy. Rather, the opinion simply reaches the conclusion that the trial court was correct in finding no threshold injury and enumerates certain factors therein in support of that conclusion.
The plaintiff in this case was a high school student who was injured whether bicycle was hit by a car. She sustained cuts on both elbows and on her right knee. In addition, she broke her-front tooth requiring capping and cracked two other teeth.
In finding that plaintiff had not sustained a threshold injury, the Court noted: (1) plaintiff was not treated at the scene, (2) plaintiff did not visit an emergency room after the accident, (3) plaintiff was never hospitalized, (4) plaintiff required no stitches of any of her lacerations, (5) plaintiff was placed under no activity restrictions of any kind, (6) plaintiff had no interruption of her schooling, (7) plaintiffs own testimony characterized her knee scar as "faint," (8) plaintiff never had any consultation or treatment by a plastic surgeon regarding her cosmetic injuries, (9) plaintiff was never prescribed any medication for her occasional complaints of jaw pain, (10) plaintiffs dentist was unable to express any opinion as to whether or not plaintiff would require any medical treatment in the future for oral problems, (11) plaintiff never was physically incapacitated for any period of time, (12) plaintiff never sustained an interference with normal lifestyle for any period of time.
[Author's Comment: This technique of itemizing various factors involving plaintiff’s injuries was also utilized to a certain extent in the previous threshold opinion in Braden v Lee (item number 725). There the Court noted: (1) the plaintiff was never hospitalized, (2) the plaintiff never required any specialized medical treatment, (3) the plaintiff was never placed under medical restriction, (4) the plaintiff never experienced any physical incapacity, (5) there was never any definitive medical diagnosis regarding plaintiffs condition, (6) there was no abnormality upon any physical examination. Perhaps threshold cases in the future will be determined, in part, by how plaintiffs "score" with regard to various specific factors that are mentioned in previous appellate opinions.]
