Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 151108; Unpublished
Judges Weaver, Murphy, and Jansen; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter Of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam unpublished Opinion (Judge Murphy concurring in result only), the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant, City of Detroit, on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
At the initial hearing on summary disposition, the plaintiff submitted a letter from a treating physician in which that physician stated that the accident had exacerbated the plaintiffs prior knee injury. The trial court refused to rely on the letter which was not under oath. However, on reconsideration of the grant of summary disposition, the trial court did accept and consider an affidavit from the same physician. After considering the affidavit, the court held that it did not create a question of fact as to causation of serious impairment of body function.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals stated that the trial court was initially correct in refusing to rely on an unsworn letter. Opinions, conclusionary denials, unsworn averments and inadmissible hearsay do not suffice in establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. In this case, the unsworn letter was insufficient to support plaintiff’s position because it was hearsay.
In further addressing the issues after submission of the affidavit, the Court of Appeals stated that reasonable minds could not differ on whether plaintiff sustained a serious impairment of body function. The affidavit did not reveal the existence, extent or permanency of any impairment sustained by plaintiff. Additionally, it did not create a question as to whether plaintiffs non-economic losses arose out of the medically identifiable injury which seriously impaired a body function. The affidavit was silent as to the existence, extent and permanency of the impairment. The only treatment received by plaintiff for the injury to her knee was the taking of Motrin, which plaintiff was taking prior to the accident as a result of knee surgery preceding the accident.
In light of all of the above, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the serious impairment issue under §3135.
