Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #238713; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, White and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration with respect to the trial court's earlier order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function. At the time the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant, there was MRI evidence showing that plaintiff had bulging discs in the lower spine and EEG evidence of “abnormal brain function.” However, there was insufficient evidence that these conditions had any significant impact on plaintiff's general ability to live a normal life. The court noted “plaintiff was still able to work, drive, socialize, travel, take care of herself, her children and her home, and otherwise engage in the normal activities of life.” After the circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, plaintiff consulted a neurologist who provided a report and affidavit that arguably was sufficient to automatically establish a jury submissible question regarding plaintiff's close head injury. However, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court's refusal to consider this evidence was not an “abuse of discretion” in that such evidence could, with reasonable diligence, have been produced earlier. Therefore, the trial court's refusal to reconsider was affirmed.
