Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 50430; Published
Judges Holbrook, Bronson, and Walsh; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 107 Mich App 657; 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 (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [§3135(1)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement as a Matter of Law [§3135(1)(2)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Bronson, the Court of Appeals reversed a directed verdict in favor of defendant on threshold questions of serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement. The plaintiff in this case sustained a fractured humerus (elbow) which required four days of hospitalization and an arm-length cast for six weeks which extended from shoulder to wrist. Plaintiff further testified that the cast made it difficult for her to do her household chores. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of defendant, finding that these injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals stated that:
"Unless it can be said that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable jury could view the injuries as constituting a serious impairment or a serious permanent disfigurement, the question is one of fact for the jury."
The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to make this a jury question.
Plaintiff had also sustained scars on her left arm which turned pinkish-red in hot weather and also a scar on her forehead which was probably between an inch to two inches in length. With regard to these scars, the trial court also found them to not constitute threshold injuries. In reversing this ruling, the court stated:
"Almost any facial scar which is immediately noticeable may result in serious emotional effects for the individual who must bear the scar. Such a permanent facial scar might be found to be a serious disfigurement by a jury. Similarly, a jury might have found that the scars on Betty Earls’s arm, which turned pinkish-red in hot weather and caused her embarrassment, constituted a serious disfigurement based on her testimony."
The court also held that the trial court made an error when it ruled that plaintiff’s orthopaedic surgeon is "certainly never qualified as a plastic surgeon." The court stated that the mere fact that plaintiff’s orthopaedic surgeon was not certified as a plastic surgeon, did not necessarily preclude his testimony as an expert. The court stated: "To be qualified as a medical expert, it is sufficient if the witness has expertise by training or experience in the specialty in question. The witness need not actually be a practitioner of the specialty." Accordingly, the court instructed the trial plaintiff’s orthopaedic surgeon was not certified as judge on remand to make this determination of expertise based upon the correct standard.
[Author's Comment: This decision does not mention the prior decision of the Court of Appeals in Burk v Warren (Item No. 401) which held a fractured clavicle was a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law].
