 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kreiner v. Fischer6/3/2003
FOR PUBLICATION
ON REMAND
This appeal, involving the issue whether plaintiff suffered a "serious impairment of body function" as defined in MCL 500.3135(7), is once again before us by order of the Michigan Supreme Court, in which the Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated our previous decision, Kreiner v Fischer, 251 Mich App 513; 651 NW2d 433 (2002), and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the order. The Supreme Court remand order provided, in pertinent part:
The no-fault act, MCL 500.3135(7), defines "serious impairment of body function" as "an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life." The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, concluding that plaintiff 's impairment is not "serious enough" to meet the tort threshold. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that plaintiff is not required to show that his impairment "seriously" affects his ability to lead his normal life in order to meet the tort threshold. The Court of Appeals then concluded that, if the facts as alleged by plaintiff are true, his impairment has affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In our judgment, both the circuit court and the Court of Appeals erred. Although a serious effect is not required, any effect does not suffice either. Instead, the effect must be on one's general ability to lead his normal life. Because we believe that neither of the lower courts accurately addressed this issue, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for it to consider whether plaintiff 's impairment affects his general ability to lead his normal life. [Kreiner v Fischer,__ Mich __; __ NW2d __ (Docket No. 122115, entered April 9, 2003) (emphasis in original).]
After consideration of the Supreme Court's remand order, we again reverse the trial court's judgment granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. Our Supreme Court's order does not impact in any manner a significant portion of our analysis in the previous opinion; therefore, because the Supreme Court's order vacates our entire opinion, we find it appropriate and necessary to incorporate and adopt here that portion of our earlier opinion. We stated in part:
Under the no-fault act, a plaintiff may recover non-economic losses only if the plaintiff has suffered "death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement." MCL 500.3135(1).
Pursuant to MCL 500.3135(2)(a), the issue whether an individual has suffered serious impairment of body function is a question of law for the trial court to decide if the court finds either of the following:
(i) There is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries.
(ii) There is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person's injuries, but the dispute is not material to the determination as to whether the person has suffered a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement. Issues of law, as well as rulings on motions for summary disposition, are reviewed by this Court de novo. Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp, 248 Mich App 573, 582-583; 640 NW2d 321 (2001).
We read MCL 500.3135(2) as requiring a trial court to determine, as a matter of law, whether a plaintiff has suffered serious impairment of body function where there is no factual dispute, or where the facts are in dispute, but the disputed facts are not outcome-determinative with respect to a proper resolution of determining serious impairment. Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 341-342; 612 NW2d 838 (2000). Because
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|