Court Opinion

ID: 9742784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:20:16.92288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:36.618148
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The majority simply holds that the trial court "did not err in finding as a matter of law *196that plaintiff did not suffer serious impairment of body function”. I believe that a more workable standard for resolving serious impairment cases is to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the injured and determine whether reasonable minds can differ on whether the impairment suffered is serious. My reasons for adopting this standard are set forth in my concurring opinion in Kelleher v Kuchta, 138 Mich App 45; 359 NW2d 224 (1984).
In applying this standard to the instant case, I believe that reasonable minds may differ as to the seriousness of the impairment suffered by plaintiff. There is evidence that plaintiff’s inguinal hernia is related to the accident and that plaintiff still experiences chronic pain from the complications of two hernia operations. Reasonable minds may differ on whether plaintiff’s injury restricts normal body functions such as walking and lifting. While plaintiff’s physician testified by deposition that plaintiff was instructed to return gradually to a normal level of activity, it is not clear that plaintiff has been successful in accomplishing this goal. I would hold that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was improper.