Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 244483; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Murphy, and Talbot; 2-1 opinion; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, Judge Talbot dissenting, the majority concluded, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s objectively manifested impairment did indeed affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life and, therefore, plaintiff satisfied the serious impairment of body function threshold, and the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant was reversed.
The plaintiff sustained a fractured-dislocated elbow, along with chest wall contusion, bilateral forearm contusion, as well as a laceration to her left finger.
Plaintiff underwent surgery on her injured elbow and spent three days in the hospital. As a result of the accident, she missed about a month or more of work as an automobile parts inspector. Following the accident, she lived with her sister for about three weeks, during which time her sister had to “do everything” for the plaintiff. During this time period, plaintiff’s injured arm was supported by a sling. Plaintiff was also unable to drive for several weeks following the accident. Plaintiff injured her dominant right hand, and due to a pre-existing stroke, had limited use of her left hand. As a result of her elbow injury, plaintiff was unable to hold a coffee pot, dropped objects at home, needed the assistance of co-workers to carry heavy items at work, could not bow hunt, had difficulty taking the garbage out, washing dishes, bathing, and suffered pain when lifting herself out of bed in the morning.
In reversing the trial court grant of summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function, the majority held that there was no dispute that for the first month or two following the accident, plaintiff’s elbow impairment and other injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Plaintiff could not work at all for 52 days. Although she was able, in general, to lead her normal life after a couple of months following the accident, the majority held that the injury need not be permanent, and as a matter of law, plaintiff in this case suffered a serious impairment of body function in light of the undisputed facts.
