Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 54955; Unpublished
Judges Bronson, Maher, and Warshawsky; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this significant, unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals specifically rejected the holding of another panel of the Court of Appeals in Rusinek v Schultz, item number 315, that a plaintiff is entitled to recover noneconomic damages in tort only for the period during which he suffered a serious impairment of body function. In ruling that Rusinek was incorrectly decided," the Court stated:
"Thus, according to the plain and unambiguous terms of the statute, a tortfeasor is liable for noneconomic loss where the injured person has sustained, inter alia, serious impairment of body function. Once this threshold has been crossed by a particular plaintiff, the defendant remains liable for all economic loss suffered by the plaintiff. Nothing in the language of the statute supports the result reached by the Rusinek panel; indeed, the Court was forced to rely upon vague policy considerations instead of focusing on the words chosen by the legislature.
"Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed, see Rusinek, 411 Mich at 508, and it is clear beyond peradventure that a statute that abolishes liability for noneconomic loss is contrary to the common law. The Rusinek panel's construction of the statute is inconsistent with this cardinal principle and does violence to the legislature's intent in enacting this provision. Permitting severely injured persons to recover all of the noneconomic damages they have sustained 'does not create a new case nor does it contribute significantly to the problems the act was intended to alleviate.' 411 Mich at 508."Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should instruct the jury that plaintiff is entitled to recover noneconomic damages for the period beyond which he suffered a serious impairment of body function."
[Author's Comment: The last sentence in the appellate court's opinion cited above raises the question of whether or not the Standard Jury Instructions should be modified so as to require the trial court to specifically instruct that a plaintiff is entitled to recover noneconomic losses beyond the date the injury no longer constitutes a "threshold" injury. At the present time, the jury instructions are silent as to this issue.]
