Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Burling v Persh; (COA-UNP, 2/19/1987; RB#1009)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 91073; Unpublished  
Judges Sullivan, Gribbs, and Penzien; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt    


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]  
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable    


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the entry of summary disposition by the trial court, in favor of defendant, in light of the new standards set forth in DiFranco.

Without describing the extent of the injury involved, the Court of Appeals held that the standards set forth in DiFranco apply to this case which was pending on appeal at the time of the decision in that case. A trial court ruling on a motion for summary disposition must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and submit the issue to the fact finder if reasonable minds can differ as to whether the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function. Thus, the Court remanded the case to the circuit court for reconsideration. The Court also held that the DiFranco standards also apply to issues involving disfigurement.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram