Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


CHRISTOPHER RAKCZYNSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v

UNPUBLISHED January 13, 1998

No. 194410 Manistee Circuit Court LC No. 95-007760-NI

TERRENCE WAYNE KURIGER, Defendant-Appellee.

Before: White, P. J., and Cavanagh and Reilly, JJ PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The trial court found as a matter of law that plaintiff' s injuries did not amount to "serious impairment of body function," the threshold necessary for the recovery of noneconomic damages under the no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135, subsequently amended by 1995 PA 222. We affirm. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it concluded that reasonable persons could not differ on the question whether plaintiff' s injury constituted a serious impairment of body function. We disagree. This Court reviews the grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition de novo. McGuirk Sand & Gravel, Inc v Meridian Mutual Ins Co, 220 Mich App 347, 352; 559 NW2d 93 (1996). A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual basis underlying a plaintiff's claim. Summary disposition is permitted when, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When reviewing such a motion, a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence available to it in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. If there is no material factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff' s injuries, but reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether the plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function, summary disposition should not be granted. DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32, 58; 398 NW2d 896 (1986).

-1

The Michigan Supreme Court, in DiFranco, supra at 39, explained that former

Download CHRISTOPHER RAKCZYNSKI V TERRENCE WAYNE KURIGER.pdf

Michigan Law