Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 50922; Published
Judges Riley, Bashara, and MacKenzie; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 105 Mich App 405; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of defendant on the question of serious impairment of body function. Citing prior cases, the Court stated, "This Court has repeatedly held that whether the complainant has suffered serious impairment of a bodily function is a fact question. However, where the injuries are so insubstantial that the plaintiff has failed to reach the threshold of serious impairment, the trial court may remove the cause from the jury and dismiss the case. In order for the court to take the question from the jury, it must first determine that no reasonable juror could view plaintiff’s impairment as serious." In this particular case, the plaintiff testified to seeing a physician 121 times and stated an inability to perform normal functions. Inasmuch as credibility is a matter for the jury, a reasonable juror could have concluded that plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function.
In addition, the Court held that proof of serious impairment of body function does not necessarily require expert testimony. No such requirement is in the statute or case law and accordingly the trial court was in error to the extent it so held.
