Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 43683; Published
Judges Maher, Cavanagh, and Cynar, 2-1 (with J. Cavanagh Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 98 Mich App 445; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (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 this 2-1 Opinion by judge Maher (Judge Cynar joining in result only and Judge Cavanagh dissenting), the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of defendant on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case had suffered bruises on her legs and knees and a bump on her head neither of which prevented her from sitting or standing and disappeared in two months. In addition, the plaintiff experienced some neck pain for which she was treated by a doctor nine times with heating pads. Within one month after the accident, the plaintiff was working full time and performing regular household duties.
In affirming the propriety of summary judgment on the threshold issue, the Court reviewed the developing line of cases regarding summary judgments on threshold questions. In commenting on the cases, Judge Maher wrote:
"The above cases demonstrate that, in order to meet the threshold of serious impairment, either the initial injury must be severe or the effects must be continuing either permanent or long term. Among the factors to be considered are the extent of the injury, treatment required, duration of disability, extent of residual impairment and prognosis for eventual recovery. Additional relevant factors may be considered as well. Conversely, not all the factors mentioned need be present to find serious impairment in a given case.
"For example, a severely injured person who eventually makes a total recovery with little or no residual impairment may be found to suffer serious impairment In other words, the more extensive or severe the injury, the less need for residual impairment Thus, one who suffers life endangering injuries but experiences complete recovery within a relatively short time may nonetheless meet the threshold requirement By the same token, a relatively less disabling condition which is permanent (or of significantly long duration) or recurring may constitute serious impairment by virtue of its longevity e.g. tendinitis in McKendrick, nerve damage in Pohl. The more likely that the impairment will be recurring or of a permanent nature, the less severe the condition must be. Where neither severe nor long term an impairment is not to be considered serious within the meaning of MCLA 3135(1)."
As indicated, Judge Cynar concurred in the result only. Judge Cavanagh filed a separate dissenting opinion stating that, until the legislature more clearly defined the threshold, determination of the threshold question should be left to the trier of fact except in those cases "at the outer most limits of the spectrum." Judge Cavanagh felt the injuries in this case fell in between and would therefore dissent.
