Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Fidler v MacKinder; (COA-UNP, 2/19/1982; RB #498)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 51553; Unpublished  
Judges Maher, Allen, and Cynar; Unanimous; Per Curiam    
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:    
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]  
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter oLaw (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable   


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unanimous, per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not commit error by refusing plaintiff’s request to rule as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries constituted a "serious impairment of body functions under §3135 of the Act The Court cited the general rule which has developed regarding motions for directed verdict and/or summary judgment that "ordinarily the serious impairment of body function issue is a question of fact that is within the exclusive province of the trier of fact, and should be determined by the trial court as a matter of law only where the injury falls squarely on either end of the spectrum." The Court then reviewed the rather substantial evidence that plaintiff introduced on the issue of serious impairment and concluded that even though there was "abundant testimony presented by plaintiff with respect to her medical status, the evidence of serious impairment was not sufficiently overwhelming to compel the conclusion that plaintiff’s injuries met the threshold requirement of the statute." Among the evidence presented by the plaintiff was testimony of one physician who unequivocally stated that plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function and was totally and permanently disabled, and the testimony of two other physicians that plaintiff had been disabled at the time they examined her. However, defendants presented "damaging evidence" that plaintiff’s injuries had been contrived for the purpose of collecting a large award of damages. Thus, there was a sufficient factual dispute for the jury's determination.


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