Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 46548; Published
Judges Riley, Bashara, and MacKenzie; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 106 Mich App 314; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
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 per curiam Opinion the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's granting of a summary judgment in favor of defendant on the question of serious impairment of body function, the plaintiff incurred injuries to her neck, back, and shoulders for which she received immediate treatments which continued up to the time of hearing. She had been instructed to stay off her feet and alleged that she could not perform housework or lift anything. She had headaches twice a week for which she took pain medication. In ruling that summary judgment was erroneous, 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." The Court went on to state that certain factors can be considered in determining whether a threshold injury has been sustained, including the extent of the injuries, the treatment required, the duration of the disability, the extent of residual impairment and the prognosis for eventual recovery. However, not all of these criteria are necessary to establish a threshold injury nor is the list an all inclusive one. The Court held that reasonable jurors could conclude that plaintiff’s impairment was serious viewing the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. As a result, a genuine issue of material fact existed and summary judgment in favor of defendant was reversible error.
