Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 122115; Published
Opinion by Justice Taylor; 4-3 (Justices Kelly, Cavanagh and Weaver dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 468 Mich. 885, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In lieu of granting defendant's Application for Leave to Appeal, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Kreiner v Fischer #1 [Item No. 2301] and stated as follows:
“On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the May 31, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this matter to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The issue here is whether plaintiff satisfies the 'serious impairment of body function' threshold set by the no-fault insurance act in order to be able to maintain an action for noneconomic tort damages. See MCL 500.3135(1). The no-fault act, MCL 500.3135(7), defines 'serious impairment of body function' as 'an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life.' The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, concluding that plaintiff's impairment is not 'serious enough' to meet the tort threshold. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that plaintiff is not required to show that his impairment 'seriously' affects his ability to lead his normal life in order to meet the tort threshold. The Court of Appeals then concluded that, if the facts as alleged by plaintiff are true, his impairment has affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In our judgment, both the circuit court and the Court of Appeals erred. Although a serious effect is not required, any effect does not suffice either. Instead, the effect must be on one's general ability to lead his normal life. Because we believe that neither of the lower courts accurately addressed this issue, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for it to consider whether plaintiff's impairment affects his general ability to lead his normal life. Kelly, J., would deny leave to appeal.”
