Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 92155; Unpublished
Judges Sullivan, MacKenzie, and Daniels; Unanimous; 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 (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this pre-DiFranco case, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a directed verdict by the trial court in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of serious impairment.
The plaintiff sustained a serious jaw injury resulting in substantial treatment. Shortly after the accident, plaintiff began complaining of severe pain and clicking noises in her jaw. She was treated by multiple specialists, and diagnosed as suffering from temporal-mandibular joint disorder (TMJ). Treatment consisted of wearing a bite splint and physical therapy in the form of electrical muscle stimulation and muscle injections. One of her treating dentists felt that absent surgery, plaintiff’s condition could not be resolved and would deteriorate, resulting in severely arthritic joints. A specialist in temporal-mandibular joint dysfunction testified that plaintiff’s prognosis was only "fair," and felt surgical treatment of plaintiff’s condition would eventually be required, but he did not believe that surgery would completely correct plaintiff’s dysfunction. Plaintiff testified at trial that the injuries caused her difficulty in eating, food fell out of her mouth, she had lost considerable weight due to her inability to properly eat, the bite splint caused sores on the roof of her mouth and swelling of her gums, her jaw dislocated when she chewed, she suffered severe headaches, and she had constant pain and clicking noises in her ears.
Amazingly, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the issue of serious impairment of body function, claiming plaintiff had failed to meet the Cassidy threshold. The trial court denied the motion, and after proofs from the defendant, granted plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict on the serious impairment issue.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied the DiFranco standards, and concluded that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, reasonable minds could not differ on the issue, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
