Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259600; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Cavanagh, and Servitto; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010 [3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for specific factual findings as required by May v Summerfield [RB #2117]. The plaintiff in this case sustained undefined neck and back injuries for which he sought uninsured benefits from his no-fault insurer. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings required by MCL 500.3135(2)(a) when it granted defendant summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the trial court order. In remanding the case for further proceedings, the court noted that under May v Summerfield [RB #2117], in order for a trial court to determine whether a plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function, it must first make the factual findings required under MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(I) or (ii). In this case, the trial court failed to make the required findings. Although it determined that plaintiff had sustained an injury, it did not identify the injury; it did not state whether the injury was objectively manifested; it did not state whether an important body function was impaired; and it failed to determine whether the impairment affected the normal course of plaintiff’s life. In this regard, the court stated:
“The trial court failed to make any factual findings relative to MCL 500.3135(2)(a). The trial court determined there was an injury, but never specified whether the injury was to plaintiff’s neck or back, or both (as claimed by plaintiff). It is unclear, then, whether a factual dispute as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries existed.
The trial court further failed to make the requisite findings of fact concerning whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of a body function. . . . Here, the court never specified what evidence lead the court to conclude there was an objectively manifested impairment and, in fact, stated that an objective manifestation was assumed more than found. The court also never indicated if an important body function was impaired or what such impairment was.
Additionally, while the trial court stated that plaintiff’s daily life was not affected by his injury(ies), it failed to discuss the actual nature and extent of plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff’s treatment, whether there was any continuing disability, or plaintiff’s prognosis for eventual recovery. The court also failed to examine plaintiff’s life before and after the accident in an attempt to determine the extent of the injuries. Thus, the court failed to make the factual findings required by MCL 300.3135(2)(a).”
