Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 240065; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Cavanagh, and Meter; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [§3135(1)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of the defendant with regard to the issue of serious impairment of body function, but reversed and found in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the issue of permanent serious disfigurement.
Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident resulting in a “boxer’s fracture” of his left hand, a 15 cm laceration, and permanent scarring to his left flank area, and a laceration to his right arm. He had extensive loss of skin due to his slide across the pavement. Plaintiff missed six weeks of work while recuperating. Initially he was unable to perform daily activities without the assistance of family members. Within two weeks, however, he was able to complete his household chores. He experienced virtually no physical limitations following his recovery.
The Court of Appeals held that even though the plaintiff was off of work for six weeks, he was able to perform normal household duties within two weeks. His record of treatment was not extraordinary and the healing process lacked any substantial complications leading to a disruption of his normal life. His only maladies were occasional complaints of pain in his hand and a decreased ability to sustain his grip while water tubing. The court held that neither of these consequences rose to the level of impairing his general ability to lead a normal life. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
With regard to his left flank scar, the court held:
“While the trial court reasoned that the scar was not serious because it was in an area ‘that would normally be covered,’ we disagree with that rationale. The proper inquiry relates to the physical characteristics of the scar, Kosack, supra, not the ability of the scar to be covered. Furthermore, the fact that the trial court noted that the scar was ‘on a man’ bears no relationship to any relevant factor. Men frequently doff their shirts in warm weather as well as when participating in athletic and bathing activities. Should plaintiff choose to participate in such activities, his scar would be clearly evident to a casual observer due to its physical characteristics. Upon de novo review, we find that the plaintiff’s scar is a permanent serious disfigurement. Spiek, supra; MCL 500.3135. Because there is no genuine issue regarding the extent or effects of plaintiff’s injuries, this is not a matter for a jury. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant on the issue of permanent serious disfigurement and order summary disposition for the plaintiff on the threshold issue of permanent serious disfigurement.”
