Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #251562; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Markey and O’Connell; 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 [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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses and permanent serious disfigurement. The plaintiff in this case sustained a broken finger, a torn rotator cuff, and bulging disks for which he had a cervical laminectomy. The surgery left a 4 ½ inch scar. In finding that plaintiff failed to present evidence that the injuries had any affect on his life, the court noted that although the ability to use one’s neck is an important body function, the injury was corrected by the surgery. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff testified that after the accident he was able to engage in the same recreational activities as before, with the exception of playing video games. While plaintiff claimed that he could not do the same proportion of chores, he testified that his girlfriends simply increased the proportion they did. Plaintiff testified that he no longer did occasional work as a handyman, but he discounted the value of this work, and no physician had placed any restrictions on plaintiff’s ability to work. He continued to receive the same disability benefits from Social Security that he had been receiving since 1994. In light of our Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner, plaintiff has failed to create a material issue of fact regarding his general ability to lead his normal life. Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition.”
As to whether the scar on the back of plaintiff’s neck was a permanent serious disfigurement, the court resorted to common knowledge and experience to rule against plaintiff. In so ruling, the court stated:
“While plaintiff’s surgical scar might ruin the career of a young jewelry model, the record reflects that plaintiff wears many scars as a consequence of his long life in a tough city. He has been shot three times and stabbed twice. He has had several toes amputated because of complications with diabetes. During his military service, he received a severe head injury that left him with a self-described ‘dent’ in his head. In contrast to these disfigurements, the scar on the back of his neck is not particularly disturbing or egregious. It is invisible when facing him, and does not appear jagged, keloided, unusually discolored, or otherwise unsettling. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, the surgical scar did not constitute a permanent serious disfigurement.”
