Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3135

Section 500.3135’s serious impairment threshold can be met by nonpermanent, objectively manifested fractures that require bedrest and limit ordinary activities.

Range v. Gorosh · filed 1984-10-19

Plaintiff's injuries, broken bones, were objectively manifested. Further, while the injuries were not permanent, by the defendants' own admission they were of a nature which required bedrest in order to heal properly. Plaintiff was unable to perform ordinary household chores for a period of time and did not return to work until February, 1977. While the injuries were not of the severity suffered by the plaintiff in Cassidy, we believe that they were sufficiently serious to meet the threshold requirement contained in MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.

Section 500.3135(1) measures serious impairment of body function by the injury’s objective effect on body functions and common daily activities, rather than the demands of the injured person’s job.

Routley v. Dault · filed 1984-11-13(1)

The seriousness of the injury must be determined by an objective evaluation of its effect on the person's body functions and the ability to perform common day-to-day activities, and not by extrinsic considerations such as the nature of the person's employment.

Section 500.3135 allows recovery for noneconomic loss from a soft tissue injury only if it meets the serious impairment threshold; pain without an objectively manifested injury or significant interference with normal life does not suffice.

Vreeland v. Wayman · filed 1985-01-17

The statute, MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135, abolished tort liability for noneconomic losses unless certain threshold requirements were met. ... Plaintiff’s injuries were not subject to medical measurement and thus are not objectively manifested in a scientific or medical context. ... There is no significant interference with his normal lifestyle, nor is he incapacitated. ... We conclude that the trial court was correct in determining as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries failed to meet the minimum threshold requirement for recovery of noneconomic losses; thus, summary judgment was properly entered in defendant’s favor.

Section 500.3135(1) requires a serious, objectively manifested impairment of body function; medically unsubstantiated pain and suffering does not satisfy the threshold.

Morris v. Levine · filed 1985-05-23(1)

Second, by its own terms, the statute requires that any impairment be "serious”. MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). Third, the injuries which constitute a serious impairment of body function must be objectively manifested. Medically unsubstantiated pain and suffering is not sufficient to meet the threshold.

Section 500.3135 requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects a person’s general ability to live a normal life before the person may recover noneconomic loss for serious impairment of body function.

Pullen v. Warrick · filed 1985-07-16

"Serious impairment of body function" is a significant obstacle to a tort action for noneconomic loss in keeping with the alternative threshold requirements in MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135 of death or permanent serious disfigurement. Cassidy, supra, p 503. The Legislature intended to retain tort remedies for noneconomic loss for the catastrophically injured. See Workman v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange, 404 Mich 477, 509; 274 NW2d 373 (1979). Thus, a plaintiff must show that the impaired body function is an important one and affects the person's general ability to live a normal life. Cassidy, supra, pp 504-505. Objective manifestation of the injury is also required because "[r]ecovery for pain and suffering is not predicated on serious pain and suffering, but on injuries that affect the functioning of the body". Id., p 505.

Section 500.3135 requires an objectively manifested injury that seriously impairs an important body function before a person may recover noneconomic damages; muscle spasms alone do not meet that threshold without evidence that they affect body function.

Franz v. Woods · filed 1985-08-20

We conclude as a matter of law that plaintiff has not shown an injury that affects an important body function or a serious impairment of a body function. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s grant of a directed verdict in defendant’s favor on the basis that plaintiff failed to make the threshold showing of serious impairment of body function in order to recover noneconomic damages under MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.

Section 500.3135(1) requires an objectively manifested, serious impairment of body function for recovery of noneconomic losses; subjective symptoms of post-traumatic neurosis do not meet that threshold.

Garris v. Vanderlaan · filed 1985-10-22(1)

Plaintiff's alleged injuries are not objectively manifested and are not sufficiently "serious" to rise to the level intended by the Legislature to be necessary to support an action for noneconomic losses.

Section 500.3135 requires an objectively manifested injury that seriously impairs an important body function and affects the plaintiff’s general ability to live a normal life; pain and suffering alone do not meet that threshold.

Schubot v. Thayer · filed 1986-05-12

Very clearly, any plaintiff that comes to court and shows only pain and suffering cannot claim an impairment of a body function. The plaintiff must also prove an objectively manifested injury which seriously impairs an important function of plaintiff’s body. It must further affect plaintiff’s general ability to live a normal life.

The serious-impairment threshold can be met by objectively shown back fractures that seriously affect ordinary activities, even after the fractures heal.

Freel v. Dehaan · filed 1986-10-20

The movement of one’s back is an important body function. ... In addition, here the x-rays of the plaintiff’s back reveal the compression fractures, thus satisfying the requirement of objective manifestation of the injury. The final question to be decided is whether the impairment is sufficiently serious to impact upon plaintiffs ability to lead a normal life. Plaintiff presented evidence indicating that, although his compression fractures have healed, scarring of the ligaments remains, ultimately causing extreme discomfort when plaintiff attempts to perform normal activities such as lifting groceries, lifting his daughter, walking long distances, or standing or lying down for extended periods of time. ... we find that the evidence presented, although not overwhelming, was sufficient to establish a serious impairment of a body function.

Under § 500.3135, disputed physical restrictions that may prevent a person from working can be material to whether an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function seriously affects the person’s ability to live a normal life.

Chumley v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1986-12-02(1)

In our opinion, the inability of this plaintiff to engage in employment that requires lifting, bending, twisting, prolonged standing, or prolonged sitting is tantamount to an inability to engage in any employment. We find that there is a factual dispute regarding plaintiff’s physical restrictions limiting her ability to work which is material to the determination of whether she has suffered a serious impairment of a body function.

Section 500.3135(7) requires an objectively manifested impairment to affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life to qualify as a serious impairment of body function.

Miller v. Purcell · filed 2001-08-23(7)

However, assuming that plaintiff’s injury is objectively manifested, we are satisfied that plaintiff has not suffered a serious impairment of body function because her general ability to lead her normal life has not been altered by her injury.

A serious impairment of body function requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important bodily function affecting the injured person’s normal life; minimal injuries requiring little treatment and unsupported pain do not satisfy that threshold.

Thoreson v. Kuntze · filed 2001-12-26(7)

The evidence presented by both parties shows that the extent of Thoreson’s injuries was minimal, and that his injuries required little treatment. Finally, the pain that allegedly forced Thoreson to leave work was not “objectively manifested.” Thoreson has failed to demonstrate that he has suffered an “impairment of an important bodily function” within the meaning of the statute, and Kuntze is therefore not exposed to liability for having caused such an impairment.

Section 500.3135(7) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead a normal life, without an additional showing that the effect is serious enough.

Kreiner v Fischer · filed 2002-09-10(7)

The third prong of the statutory definition explicitly requires only that the impairment “a£fect[] the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.”

Section 500.3135(7) requires a medically identifiable injury or condition with a physical basis for an impairment to be objectively manifested.

Jackson v. Nelson · filed 2002-11-13(7)

In light of the development of the law here and the Legislature’s intent in amending MCL 500.3135 to include a definition of “serious impairment of body function,” we conclude that SJI2d 36.11, which states in pertinent part that “[i]n order for an impairment to be objectively manifested, there must be a medically identifiable injury or condition that has a physical basis,” is an accurate reflection of the law.

Section 500.3135(7) is satisfied when an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed under the totality of the circumstances.

McDanield v. Hemker · filed 2005-12-27(7)

Here, under the totality of the circumstances, McDanield suffered the necessary threshold injury constituting a serious impairment of body function under MCL 500.3135, where plaintiffs established the existence of an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affected and affects McDanield’s general ability to lead her normal life.

Soft-tissue injuries can satisfy § 500.3135(7)’s objective-manifestation requirement if they are capable of objective verification.

Netter v. Bowman · filed 2006-09-19(7)

The trial court’s conclusion was in error because the type of “soft-tissue” injuries that Netter suffered are capable of objective verification.

Section 500.3135(7) requires an objectively manifested injury that affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life to establish serious impairment of body function.

Guerrero v. Smith · filed 2008-09-16(7)

In order to establish a serious impairment of body function, plaintiff was required to prove that he had suffered one or more objectively manifested injuries that affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Section 500.3135(7) permits a serious-impairment finding when an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Caiger v. Oakley · filed 2009-08-25(7)

Therefore, we conclude that, as required by MCL 500.3135, plaintiff has established an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function and has also established that the impairment affects his general ability to lead his normal life.

Section 500.3135(7) requires a claimed injury to be objectively verifiable by a qualified medical person through visible signs or medical testing; soft-tissue injuries can meet that requirement.

Netter v. Bowman · filed 2006-12-27(7)

In light of Kreiner and its progeny, we conclude that the current meaning of "objectively manifested" — whether described as "medically measurable," [68] "medically identifiable," [69] or "medically documented" [70] —requires that a plaintiff's injury must be capable of objective verification by a qualified medical person either because the injury is visually apparent [71] or because it is capable of detection through the use of medical testing.

Section 500.3135(7) requires an objectively observable impairment of a body function important to the injured person that affects some of the person’s capacity to live in their normal manner.

McCORMICK v. CARRIER · filed 2010-07-31(7)

The unambiguous language of MCL 500.3135(7) provides three prongs that are necessary to establish a “serious impairment of body function”: (1) an objectively manifested impairment (observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions) (2) of an important body function (a body function of value, significance, or consequence to the injured person) that (3) affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life (influences some of the plaintiff’s capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living).

Section 500.3135 requires evidence that a motor vehicle accident caused an objectively manifested impairment or exacerbated a preexisting condition.

Rudder v. Easter · filed 2017-01-10(1)

In this case, plaintiff’s preexisting neck and lower back pain was uncontested. The issue at summary disposition was whether plaintiff was injured by the accident, or whether her preexisting condition was exacerbated by the accident such that recovery was allowable under MCL 500.3135. Thus, although plaintiff presents the issue as relating to whether the serious impairment of a body function threshold of MCL 500.3135 was met, the real issue (as the trial court found) is one of causation.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function; a claimant’s subjective report of worse headaches alone does not meet that requirement.

Oehmke v. Citizens Insurance Company of America · filed 2016-03-17(5)

A plaintiff must introduce evidence demonstrating a physical basis for subjective complaints of pain and suffering, which generally will require medical testimony. Id. at 198. Consequently, plaintiff’s subjective assessment that her headaches were worse after the second accident does not establish an “objectively manifested impairment” as clarified by our Supreme Court in McCormick, 487 Mich at 195-198.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment to affect the person's general ability to lead a normal life; manageable situational discomfort without that effect does not meet the serious-impairment threshold.

Beurkens v. Bouman · filed 2016-08-11(5)

Further, the trial court did not err by issuing its July 28, 2015 opinion and order granting defendants summary disposition as to plaintiff’s tort action for noneconomic damages because the undisputed material facts showed that plaintiff had failed to raise a question of fact that he had suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects his general ability to lead his normal life. MCL 500.3135(1); (5).

Section 500.3135(5) permits a serious impairment finding when objectively manifested injuries curtail a person’s normal activities, even if the person remains physically capable of performing them.

Hall v. Ball · filed 2017-02-14(5)

MCL 500.3135(5) 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 record proves that plaintiff in fact refrains from some activities he enjoyed prior to the accident, ranging from playing hockey to playing with his child, so we cannot conclude that his life was unaffected. Plaintiff also complained that he developed debilitating, severe floaters in his vision, which are hardly subjective; such phenomena are well known to be caused by physically detectable objects, usually detached cells from the inside of the eye, literally floating through the vitreous in the eye. More importantly, plaintiff also suffered from serious muscle spasms in his lower back, which clearly were objectively manifested.

Section 500.3135 requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life; subjective pain complaints alone do not establish an objectively manifested impairment.

Harris-Holloway v. At&t Services Inc · filed 2017-03-23(5)

As previously indicated, to establish a “serious impairment of body function” under MCL 500.3135, a plaintiff must show (1) an objectively manifested impairment (observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions) (2) of an important body function (a body function of value, significance, or consequence to the injured person) that (3) affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life (influences some of the plaintiff's capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living).

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment for a serious-impairment claim; subjective complaints of pain alone do not establish one.

Harris-Holloway v. At&t Services Inc · filed 2017-03-23(5)

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain cannot, on their own, form the basis for an objective manifestation of injury. In sum, plaintiff did not provide any objective testing evidence that related any new injury to the accident.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an individualized inquiry into whether an objectively shown impairment of an important body function affects the injured person’s normal life, comparing life before and after the accident.

Smith v. Johnson · filed 2017-04-13(5)

The trial court agreed, but it erred by focusing on the causation of her limitations rather than the subjective nature of plaintiff’s life before and after the accident. While such evidence is generally required on the first prong, the third prong requires a subjective inquiry. McCormick, 487 Mich 197-198, 201-202. Once the impairment of an important body function has been objectively demonstrated, the focus becomes a subjective and individualized one, i.e. whether this plaintiff’s “normal life” has been affected by that impairment.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects some aspect of the injured person’s ability to lead a normal life; the impairment need not prevent all normal activities.

Asker v. Ishmael Sanders · filed 2017-06-13(5)

For a serious impairment to affect a person’s manner of living, it does not need to destroy the person’s life or render all activity impossible. The fact that some aspects of plaintiff’s life were affected by his impairment was sufficient to satisfy McCormick’s third prong.

Section 500.3135(5) permits a serious impairment finding when an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, even if the person remains active.

Orwig v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan · filed 2017-11-16(5)

However, the record evidence also confirms that plaintiff was very physically active before the motor vehicle accident, and that the impairments he incurred following the motor vehicle accident greatly influenced the manner in which he was able to conduct the active physical regimen that was a part of his regular life activity before the motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes that plaintiff’s individual “capacity to live his pre-incident manner of living was affected, and the third prong of [MCL 500.3135(5)] is satisfied.” McCormick, 487 Mich at 219.

Objective medical evidence establishing a physical basis for pain complaints can create a factual dispute over whether an impairment is objectively manifested under § 500.3135(5).

Ali v. Geico Indemnity Company · filed 2018-10-16(5)

Despite the subjectivity of plaintiffs’ complaints of pain and suffering, they provided objective medical evidence to establish a physical basis for their complaints which created a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affecting normal life; subjective complaints of pain alone do not establish that impairment.

Boulware v. Gutsue · filed 2018-12-18(5)

A “ ‘serious impairment of body function’ means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5). ... In sum, plaintiff did not demonstrate that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment. Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain are insufficient to show impairment, Turkelson, 322 Mich App at 607, and plaintiff’s own primary care physician testified that there was no objective evidence to substantiate plaintiff’s complaints.

Subjective components in hearing tests do not by themselves prevent medically documented hearing loss from qualifying as an objectively manifested impairment under the serious impairment threshold.

Patrick v. Turkelson · filed 2018-01-16(5)

In sum, an injury is an “objectively manifested impairment” if it is “commonly understood as one observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions.” Id. at 196. Here, Lindsey produced evidence from medical professionals and others that create questions of fact as to the nature and extent of her impairment she alleges arose from her car accident. The fact that some subjective testing methods are incorporated into these medical findings does not negate her impairment as being an objectively manifested impairment.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of body function, and medical imaging and physician evidence can create a factual dispute about whether that requirement is met.

Cooper v. Arlene Violet Carmona · filed 2019-02-14(5)

Because MCL 500.3135(5) uses the word “impairment” and not the word “injury,” “the proper inquiry is whether the impairment is objectively manifested, not the injury or its symptoms.” Id. at 197. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we conclude that there was a dispute of fact regarding whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment caused by the motor vehicle accident; pain alone does not establish that impairment.

Peeples v. Canfield · filed 2019-04-18(5)

While plaintiff may experience pain which impairs certain body functions, that pain does not, by itself, establish an objectively manifested impairment, especially in the absence of a concrete medical diagnosis or evidence tying any of plaintiff’s injuries to the accident.

Section 500.3135(1) allows noneconomic damages for a serious impairment of a body function only when an accident-related, objectively manifested impairment affects the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Lingenfelter v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company · filed 2019-05-23(1)

Under Michigan’s no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., an injured person may recover noneconomic damages if she can show that she has suffered a “serious impairment of a body function.” MCL 500.3135(1). ... Plaintiff fails to show any objectively manifested impairment evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than she would observe or perceive as impairing a body function. ... Neither can she demonstrate that her general ability to lead her preaccident, normal life has been affected.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life; an unchanged ability does not meet that threshold.

Castro v. Duesette · filed 2019-06-04(5)

That statute defines a 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.” MCL 500.3135(5). ... Because there appears to be no change in plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life, the trial court did not err in granting defendants summary disposition, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life; failure to show how accident-related injuries changed that ability defeats a serious-impairment claim.

Wilson v. Gabites · filed 2019-06-18(5)

MCL 500.3135(5) 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.” ... Specifically, plaintiff did not demonstrate that his injuries affected his general ability to lead a normal life. McCormick, 487 Mich at 200-202. He did not adequately compare his preaccident life with his postaccident life. ... Accordingly, even considering the evidence in plaintiff’s favor, see Meagher, 222 Mich App at 708, he failed to establish that any impairment as a result of the accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Section 500.3135(5) imposes no minimum duration for an objectively manifested impairment; an impairment that later heals can qualify if it affects the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Trenkamp v. Estate of Melvin Keyser · filed 2019-07-09(5)

However, there is no temporal framework included in the definition of “objectively manifested body function.” MCL 500.3135(5) simply provides that the objectively manifested impairment of a body function must affect one’s general ability to lead his or her normal life, which is a separate inquiry under the test.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function caused by the accident that affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Cobb v. Parks · filed 2019-07-30(5)

De novo review of the record in this case establishes that Cobb failed to satisfy all three prongs of MCL 500.3135(5). Cobb failed to establish (1) an objectively manifested impairment caused by the 2016 accident (2) of an important body function that (3) affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Section 500.3135(5) does not permit recovery for serious impairment of body function when the medical evidence shows no objectively manifested impairment linked to the motor vehicle accident.

Kelly, III v. United States · filed 2019-10-31(5)

On this record, plaintiff has no cause of action under the no-fault act because he has no “serious impairment of a body function” that is “objectively manifested,” as required by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in McCormick. The medical evidence, which plaintiff has failed to counter and is therefore “undisputed for purposes of the motion,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), shows no impairment of any kind that can be linked to the October 2016 accident.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment to meet the serious-impairment threshold; subjective back pain without evidence of such an impairment does not suffice.

Bliss Cureton v. Halimeh-Suede · filed 2020-06-18(5)

A serious impairment of a body function means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life. MCL 500.3135(5). ... Consequently, although Cureton complains of subjective back pain as a result of the accident, she has failed to direct this Court to any evidence of an objectively manifested impairment of her back.

An objectively manifested impairment may be shown through a physician’s observations of reduced range of motion, reduced strength, and abnormal reflexes linked to the accident, even when imaging shows stable preexisting spinal conditions.

Rana Al-Sahli v. Grissom-Davis · filed 2020-09-10(5)

Dr. Dhillon linked his diagnosis to the 2017 accident and his observation of plaintiff’s decreased range of motion, decreased left leg strength, and hypoactive reflexes was an objective observation. Consequently, plaintiff presented evidence, albeit slight in comparison to the countervailing evidence, that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment as a result of the 2017 accident. Nonetheless, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we are required to do, the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to defendant.

A serious impairment claim under § 500.3135(5) requires proof of an objectively manifested impairment caused by the collision; medical records showing only the claimant’s condition afterward do not establish causation.

Saad v. Reddy · filed 2020-09-17(5)

Simply offering medical records documenting plaintiff’s status after the third collision is insufficient to establish a causal link between that status and the accident.

Under § 500.3135(1), subjective complaints of pain alone do not establish the objectively manifested impairment required for a serious impairment of body function.

Talool v. Rennalls · filed 2021-04-08(1)

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain, without more, are insufficient to establish an objectively manifested impairment.

Under the pre-2019 version of subsection (5), pain and limited mobility can satisfy the objectively manifested impairment requirement when physical examination and medical imaging support them and connect them to the accident.

Jeanine D Smith v. City of Detroit · filed 2021-09-02(5)

The “impairments” in this case are pain and lack of mobility, and the substance of Dr. Bleiberg’s affidavit constituted evidence that the impairments were objectively manifested, as revealed by physical examination of Smith and review of the MRIs, and that the accident was the cause of the impairments.

Section 500.3135(5) requires evidence connecting an objectively manifested impairment to the motor vehicle accident; medical records must make that connection apparent or other evidence must establish it.

Kittle v. United States · filed 2021-12-02(5)

Kittle’s evidence would not permit a reasonable jury to find that the accident caused her impairment. References to medical records are not enough unless, on their face, they make apparent the connection to the underlying trauma.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) requires an objectively manifested impairment, which the court found unproved where no medical opinion attributed the documented injuries to the automobile accident.

Yarber v. Home-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2022-04-21(5)(a)

However, none of the medical records submitted by plaintiff specifically attribute his injuries to an automobile accident. There is no medical opinion providing that his injuries were a result of the accident, as required under McCormick. Id. The only references to the accident in the medical records were reported by plaintiff to the provider. Thus, plaintiff fails to meet the first requirement that his injuries were objectively manifested, MCL 500.3135(5)(a), and we need not discuss the additional requirements.

Section 500.3135(5) permits an objectively manifested impairment to be shown through medical evidence of conditions observable or perceivable by treating doctors.

Salinas v. Hayes · filed 2021-05-06(5)

Thus, the record contains evidence supporting a conclusion that plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment because there was evidence that plaintiff’s claimed impairments to his neck, back, and shoulders were based on conditions that were observable or perceivable by plaintiff’s doctors.

Subjective complaints of pain alone cannot establish the objectively manifested impairment required for a serious impairment of body function.

Harmon v. Ewing · filed 2021-06-10(5)

However, plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain cannot, by themselves, establish an objectively manifested impairment.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) permits medical records and imaging reports to establish a factual question about whether an impairment is objectively manifested.

Mitchner v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company · filed 2022-06-23(5)(a)

Plaintiff’s medical records, including imaging reports, provided evidence of “an impairment that is evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than the injured person would observe or perceive as impairing a body function” such that there was a question of fact on the issue of objectively manifested impairment.

An objectively manifested impairment under § 500.3135(5)(a) can be shown through MRI findings and surgical evidence of observable injury, creating a genuine factual dispute.

Finley v. Mora · filed 2022-08-31(5)(a)

Accordingly, Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that his impairment is objectively manifested, creating a genuine issue of material fact.

The objectively manifested impairment inquiry under § 500.3135(5) is distinct from whether the accident caused the injury.

Baskin v. Namer · filed 2022-10-27(5)

Causation is an issue distinct from the threshold injury analysis, and it appears the trial court conflated the two requirements when making its decision.

A medically documented wrist fracture that weakens wrist function can create a fact question whether an impairment is objectively manifested.

Wilson v. Duron · filed 2023-08-31(5)(a)

A broken wrist is observable or perceivable from actual conditions, as was evident from plaintiff’s medical records in this case diagnosing the fractures. The functioning of plaintiff’s wrist was clearly weakened or diminished for some period of time; she had a cast or splint, which would have restricted her ability to move her wrist and hand, and plaintiff testified that for a period of time she was unable to complete normal household chores such as cleaning, sweeping, cooking, and doing dishes. Thus, there was evidence creating a question of fact on the first prong.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) permits medical evidence of muscle spasms and other observable physical abnormalities to establish a factual question about an objectively manifested impairment.

20231109_C364047_29_364047D.Opn.Pdf · filed 2023-11-09(5)(a)

Accordingly, the evidence here, while not overwhelming, is not so thin as to preclude a reasonable juror from concluding that Robinson suffered an objectively manifested impairment as a result of the accident.

Section 500.3135(5) requires an objectively manifested impairment before a court needs to consider whether the impairment affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Johnson v. Gardner · filed 2023-12-21(5)

The trial court did not err when it found the evidence insufficient to establish an objectively manifested impairment. Because plaintiff cannot establish an objectively manifested impairment, the trial court did not have to consider whether the impairment affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) permits medical records documenting observable impairments to create a fact question about whether an impairment is objectively manifested.

Spence v. Salak · filed 2024-06-27(5)(a)

Plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact that he suffered an objectively manifested impairment with the medical records of his physical therapist, pain specialist, and licensed massage therapist.

Medical evidence of a physical basis for pain can create a fact question whether an impairment is objectively manifested under the serious impairment threshold.

Laskos v. Maples · filed 2023-05-25(5)

Here, plaintiff presented evidence of a physical basis for his pain. Plaintiff provided (1) medical records documenting muscle spasms, swelling, impaired range of motion, and (2) radiographic studies that revealed herniated and bulging discs. ... Thus, at the very least, plaintiff established that a question of fact exists regarding whether his impairment was objectively manifested.

Under former subsection (5), the impairment itself must be objectively manifested, and the claimant must connect the impairment to the accident.

Scott v. County of Oakland · filed 2023-11-21(5)

Under former MCL 500.3135(5), the impairment, not the underlying injury, must be objectively manifested. ... But Scott’s evidence did not demonstrate any connection between his impairments and the car accident.

Section 500.3135 requires an objectively manifested impairment attributable to the motor vehicle crash; preexisting impairments and unsupported subjective complaints do not satisfy the serious-impairment threshold.

Auciello v. Kinder · filed 2024-03-21(1)

Ultimately, Auciello’s medical records, Social Security application, and deposition testimony all indicate that her alleged impairments existed before the 2018 crash, and that her subjective complaints are insufficient to establish an objectively manifested impairment or that the 2018 crash was the cause of any injury or exacerbation.

Section 500.3135(7)’s serious impairment threshold requires objective evidence of an impairment to an important body function; subjective complaints without significant observable impairment do not suffice.

Williamson v. Adams · filed 2024-04-18(7)

What is missing in the current case are the objective observations that buttress plaintiff’s subjective complaints. At best, the objective evidence plaintiff submitted supports some tenderness remaining in his legs. But the objective evidence of impairment is lacking; even Dr. Hamati stated that plaintiff walks with a normal gait and his report lacks any significant observation of an impairment.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) presents a fact question when evidence supports an objectively manifested impairment caused by a motor vehicle accident despite conflicting medical evidence.

Scheppelmann v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company · filed 2024-08-22(5)(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, there was a question of fact whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment as a result of the motor vehicle accident, and the trial court thus erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) permits an objectively manifested impairment to be established through observable effects on a body function, even when some medical findings are normal.

Fortenberry v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company · filed 2025-04-22(5)(a)

Because plaintiff’s injuries were “evidenced by actual symptoms or conditions that someone other than the injured person would observe or perceive as impairing a body function[,]” McCormick, 487 Mich at 196, the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an objectively manifested impairment.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) permits a finding of objectively manifested impairment when physical injuries provide a basis for pain complaints and limit the injured person’s movement.

Borders v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-09(5)(a)

While plaintiff complained about the pain in his back, neck, and right shoulder, there was a physical basis for plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain (the tear in his shoulder and the herniated discs in his back), and those injuries affected plaintiff’s ability to move his back, neck, and shoulder. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff presented evidence of an objectively manifested impairment to his back, neck, and shoulder.

Section 500.3135(5)(a) requires evidence that an impairment of body function is objectively manifested; evidence of an injury alone does not establish that requirement.

Jones v. Hammons · filed 2026-02-18(5)(a)

Because plaintiff has not produced evidence that her alleged impairment is objectively manifested, she cannot satisfy MCL 500.3135(5)(a).

Section 500.3135 requires objective evidence of an accident-caused impairment to recover noneconomic damages for serious impairment of body function.

Moore v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company · filed 2026-05-12(1)

Accordingly, plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment for recovery of damages under MCL 500.3135.

Section 500.3135(5) requires evidence that an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life; general, conclusory statements about that effect are insufficient.

Scott v. Shannon · filed 2024-11-20(5)

While plaintiff claims in her affidavit that the accident negatively affected her ability to live the life she did before the accident, her statements are general and conclusory. See Liparoto Constr, Inc, 284 Mich App at 33. Accordingly, even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts and evidence do not demonstrate that any possible objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affected her general ability to lead her normal life. McCormick, 487 Mich at 215.

Section 500.3135(7) requires a plaintiff to show that a motor vehicle accident caused an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affecting the plaintiff’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Groen v. United States · filed 2025-03-30(7)

Under Michigan’s no-fault law, a plaintiff must establish that the motor vehicle accident caused “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affect[s] the plaintiff’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” Mich. Comp. Laws 500.3135(7).

Section 500.3135(5)(a) requires an objectively manifested impairment, and MRI findings and medical examinations can establish a physical basis for reported pain.

Moore v. Hopkins · filed 2025-02-14(5)(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moore, the MRIs and IME reports of Drs. Oney, Sessa, and Meissner established an objective basis for Moore’s subjective complaints.

Section 500.3135’s serious-impairment threshold is not established as a matter of law by a permanent loss of touch without sufficient evidence that it affected the plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life.

Kosack v. Moore · filed 1985-03-08

Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, this evidence cannot be said to show that plaintiffs injuries constituted serious impairments of body function as a matter of law. An objectively manifested permanent impairment of an important body function, the sense of touch, was shown. However, the evidence of the impact of this impairment on plaintiffs ability to live a normal life was insufficient, when considered in light of the other threshold requirements for tort recovery and the Legislature’s reasons for limiting tort recovery, to warrant a conclusion that this impairment must be characterized as serious as a matter of law.

Section 500.3135 requires evidence that an impairment affects the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life; advice to avoid excessive or repetitive reaching and pulling alone does not establish a serious impairment.

Salim v. Shepler · filed 1985-04-16

Assuming limited motion in the neck, plaintiff has not shown how it has affected her general ability to lead a normal life. She has not claimed that there are any normal activities she cannot perform. The fact that she did not work on the assembly line several months because of medical disability is not probative of her general inability to lead a normal life. The only evidence in plaintiff’s favor on this issue is her doctor’s advice to avoid activities involving excessive or repetitive reaching and pulling and causing undue strain to the cervical region. We conclude that such advice is insufficient to create a question of fact whether plaintiff has a serious impairment of a body function under the no-fault statute.

Section 500.3135(1) requires a serious impairment of an important body function, judged by the injury’s effect on the person’s ability to lead a normal life.

Meklir v. Bigham · filed 1985-06-26(1)

We would also agree that movement of one’s neck and hand are also important body functions. However, we do not find any impairment of plaintiff’s to be serious. Seriousness is judged by the effect of the injury on a person’s ability to lead a normal life.

Section 500.3135(7) defines serious impairment of body function in subjective terms by its effect on a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed by comparing the person’s lifestyle before and after the accident.

May v. Sommerfield · filed 2000-06-26(7)

The plain language of MCL 500.3135(7); MSA 24.13135(7) defines a serious impairment of body function in subjective terms, i.e., as an impairment that “affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” The trial court properly compared plaintiff’s lifestyle before and after the accident in determining whether a factual dispute existed with respect to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.

Section 500.3135(7) can be satisfied by a temporary impairment when it affects activities integral to the injured person’s normal life, including work and regular musical performance.

Straub v. Collette · filed 2003-03-07(7)

Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that plaintiffs injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function because, albeit for a relatively limited time, they did affect his general ability to lead his normal life, particularly his ability to perform musically and to work, both of which were integral parts of his normal life.

Section 500.3135(7) can be satisfied when an impairment limits work that plays a significant role in a person’s normal life, thereby affecting the person’s general ability to lead that life.

Kreiner v. Fischer · filed 2003-07-14(7)

We find that one’s general ability to lead his or her normal life can be affected by an injury that impacts the person’s ability to work at a job, where the job plays a significant role in that individuars normal life, such as in the case at bar.

Section 500.3135(7) requires courts to consider the combined effect of an impairment on the person’s whole life when deciding whether it affects the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Moore v. Cregeur · filed 2005-08-03(7)

Plaintiffs vision loss will affect every aspect of her life to some degree and will affect certain specific activities, such as hunting, even more. Taking these effects in the aggregate, we conclude that plaintiffs vision loss affects her general ability to lead her normal life, and, therefore, plaintiffs vision loss is, as a matter of law, “a serious impairment of body function.”

A serious impairment of body function can affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life when lasting limits on regular sports and coaching remain after a return to work.

Williams v. Medukas · filed 2005-08-03(7)

Given Williams’ participation in teaching basketball and his love of golf, which he can no longer pursue, we must conclude that the limitations imposed by Williams’ injuries affect his general ability to lead his normal life. Consequently, as a matter of law, Williams’ injuries constitute a serious impairment of body function and the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition for defendant. MCL 500.3135(2)(a).

Section 500.3135(7) may require considering a person’s life before an earlier accident when assessing whether a later accident affected the person’s general ability to lead a normal life, if the earlier injuries might have healed.

Benefiel v. Auto-Owners Insurance · filed 2008-02-28(7)

Therefore, for summary disposition purposes, and in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that review of plaintiffs “whole life” in order to determine plaintiffs “normal” lifestyle before the second accident should not be limited to the time frame following the first accident.

Section 500.3135 sets no minimum duration for an impairment to affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, so later normal findings do not by themselves defeat a serious impairment claim.

Stapleton v. Auto Club Insurance Association · filed 2014-12-18(5)

In addition, MCL 500.3135 “does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last in order to have an effect on ‘the person’s general ability to live his or her normal life.’ ” McCormick, 487 Mich at 203. Therefore, the fact that a surgeon noted that plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar spine were normal more than a year after the accident is not dispositive, as there is no requirement as to how long an important body function must be impaired.

An impairment can affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life even when the person continues pre-accident activities, if pain and limitations reduce the ability to perform them.

Eccleston v. Prisk · filed 2015-05-21(5)

A serious impairment of body function “means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5). ... As such, there was evidence establishing that Eccleston’s general ability to lead his normal life had been affected. See id. at 200-202. ... The trial court erred when it determined that Eccleston failed to establish that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Reduced recreational activity can show that an injury affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, but the plaintiff must provide evidence sufficient to raise a factual issue about that effect.

Nbunh v. Pitkin · filed 2015-05-21(7)

While we agree that a diminishment in Lucas’s recreational activities could support a finding that the injury affected Lucas’s ability to lead his daily life, Lucas simply did not meet his burden to establish that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the injury affected his normal manner of living.

Under § 500.3135(5), an impairment does not meet the serious-impairment threshold when there is no appreciable difference in the person’s normal life before and after the accident.

Sigan v. Jessica a Deziel · filed 2015-06-02(5)

The trial court did not err in finding that there was no appreciable difference in plaintiff’s “normal life” before and after the automobile collision, and that plaintiff therefore was not entitled to recovery of noneconomic damages.

A serious impairment under § 500.3135 requires an effect on the injured person's general ability to lead a normal life; vague claims of limitations without evidence of changed normal activities are insufficient.

Fuller v. Howard · filed 2015-12-01

However, a motor vehicle operator is still subject to tort liability if the injured person suffered a serious impairment of body function (or other consequences not applicable to this case). MCL 500.3135. ... The trial court properly determined that plaintiff did not establish that any impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life. See id. at 202.

Section 500.3135(1) requires evidence that an injury affected the person’s general ability to lead a normal life; the effect is assessed by comparing life before and after the accident, including limitations that already existed.

Lopez v. Addison · filed 2016-02-02(1)

However, a person may pursue a tort claim “if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.” MCL 500.3135(1). ... Plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that her alleged injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life.

A serious impairment of body function must affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed by comparing life before and after the accident.

Andzelik v. Auto Club Insurance Association · filed 2016-02-11(5)

Based on the record evidence, the trial court did not err by concluding that there was no appreciable difference in plaintiff’s normal life before and after the automobile accident, and that, consequently, plaintiff was not entitled to recover noneconomic damages.

Section 500.3135 requires evidence that an accident-related impairment affected the claimant’s general ability to lead a normal life to meet the serious impairment threshold for noneconomic tort liability.

Gentry v. Safeco Insurance · filed 2016-10-11(5)

Gentry did not present evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether the May 2012 accident affected her general ability to lead her normal life. MCL 500.3135(1), (5).

Under § 500.3135(5), restrictions a person imposes because of pain may show that an impairment affects the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Nolen v. Hastings · filed 2016-10-18(5)

Therefore, after viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving party, we hold that there is a question of fact whether the third prong of the subsection 3135(5) analysis was satisfied where the impairment had a significant influence on how plaintiff conducted his life. ... The trial court erred when it determined that these “self-imposed restrictions because of pain” were fatal to plaintiff’s claim; indeed, these types of restrictions are now no longer a bar under McCormick.

A serious impairment under § 500.3135(5) must affect the injured person’s capacity to lead a normal life, assessed by comparing life before and after the accident.

Greene v. City of Detroit · filed 2017-01-19(5)

A “serious impairment of body function” is further defined as “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5). ... An impairment affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life if it has “an influence on some of the person’s capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living,” id. at 202, which requires a comparison of the person’s life before and after the incident in question.

Self-imposed activity restrictions do not establish that an injury affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life when the evidence does not show the person was unable to engage in those activities.

Turner v. Johnson · filed 2017-09-12(7)

MCL 500.3135(7) provides that “‘serious impairment of body function’ means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” ... We agree that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether plaintiff’s injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. See McCormick, 487 Mich at 195. As the trial court concluded, the only evidence of restrictions on plaintiff’s activities is that the restrictions were self-imposed. While Dr. Rizwan Qadir may have recommended restrictions on plaintiff’s activities, the evidence does not support a conclusion that she was unable to engage in those activities.

A serious impairment of body function must affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed against that person’s life before and after the accident.

Afify v. Aaa Insurance Company · filed 2018-02-22(5)

Serious impairment of a body function means “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.”3 MCL 500.3135(5). ... Given Abdelrahman’s and Moustafa’s young ages and active life styles, it cannot be said that their life before the accident was more active, in any material way, than it was after the accident.

Section 500.3135(1) has no express minimum duration for a serious impairment of body function, but the impairment must affect the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Zichichi v. Mull · filed 2018-04-12(1)

Although as noted above, MCL 500.3135(1) contains no express temporal requirement, McCormick, 487 Mich at 203, measured by plaintiff’s current disabilities, he does not meet the threshold of having a serious impairment of body function. ... In fact, like the trial court, we can find no objective evidence that plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life has been affected.

A knee injury fails the serious-impairment threshold when it does not affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Eichler v. Sackett · filed 2018-10-09(5)

“ ‘[S]erious impairment of body function’ means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5). ... For these reasons, Eichler failed to establish that his knee injury affected his general ability to lead a normal life.

Section 500.3135(5) requires a serious impairment to affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed against the person’s life before the accident.

Newman v. Seibold · filed 2019-01-22(5)

“Serious impairment of body function” is statutorily defined as “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5). ... Therefore, plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affected his ability to live his normal life, and the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

Under section 500.3135(5), evidence that an injured person remains active in athletics after an accident may fail to establish that an impairment affected the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Afify v. Aaa Insurance Company · filed 2018-02-22(5)

However, even with giving the benefit of doubt to plaintiff, it does not appear that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Abdelrahman’s injuries affected his general ability to lead a normal life.

Section 500.3135(5) does not require a serious impairment of body function to be permanent; a temporary impairment can satisfy the threshold if it affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Piccione v. Lyle a Gillette · filed 2019-01-17(5)

Moreover, a serious impairment of body function—unlike a permanent serious disfigurement—does not have to be permanent, so the fact that the impairment to Gavino’s important body function only lasted three or four months has no bearing on the question at hand.

Under § 500.3135(5), limits on occasional athletic activities alone may be insufficient to show that an impairment affects a person’s general ability to lead a normal life, although athletic limitations can satisfy that threshold in other circumstances.

Springer v. Doe · filed 2019-03-28(5)

We do not mean to suggest that limitations on athletic activities cannot in and of themselves affect an individual’s ability to lead his or her normal life. To the contrary, they can and do in many situations. However, given the limited record before us we cannot conclude that limits on these occasional activities, standing alone, are significant enough to affect plaintiff’s general ability to live her normal life.

Conflicting evidence about whether an impairment affected the injured person's general ability to lead a normal life creates a fact question under the serious-impairment threshold.

Onsted v. Auto Owners Insurance Co · filed 2020-02-27(5)

The record indicates that there was conflicting evidence about whether plaintiff’s accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life. ... Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Viewing the evidence de novo in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was a genuine issue of material fact whether plaintiff had an impairment that affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Section 500.3135(5)(c) requires evidence that an impairment affected the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life; vague claims of increased difficulty do not create a factual dispute when the person’s activities remained substantially similar.

Campbell v. Golda · filed 2020-02-20(5)(c)

However, plaintiff’s evidence is too vague and conclusory to create a factual dispute regarding whether his general ability to lead his normal life was affected by his impairment, even when viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to him. Plaintiff’s daily routine was highly similar before and after the 2014 accident: he tended to his chronic low-back pain by going to medical appointments and physical therapy, he took short walks, he occasionally did light housework, and he followed sports on TV and the internet.

A serious impairment under § 500.3135(5) must affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed by comparing life before and after the accident; unchanged, sporadic work and recreation do not satisfy that requirement.

Williams v. Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility · filed 2020-08-13(5)

For purposes of this provision, the Legislature defined “serious impairment of body function” as meaning “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5), as amended by 2012 PA 158. ... Because a comparison of plaintiff’s preaccident and postaccident manner of living does not reveal significant changes, reasonable minds would agree that plaintiff did not sustain an impairment serious enough to affect his general ability to lead his normal life.

An impairment may affect a person's general ability to lead a normal life when pain or fear of further injury limits ordinary activities, even without a doctor's restriction on those activities.

Hagerman v. Kakar · filed 2020-04-23(5)(c)

In this case, Hagerman’s decision not to swim or play sports due to his fear of further injury, his decision to walk his dogs less often than he did before the accident, and his pain and discomfort preventing him from going to the movies or doing other things that strained his left shoulder and left side of his body could demonstrate that his ability to lead his normal life was affected by his alleged injuries. Therefore, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Hagerman, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of Kakar.

Section 500.3135(5)(c) has no minimum duration for an impairment affecting a person’s ability to lead a normal life; its duration may affect damages rather than entitlement.

Stevenson v. Neubar · filed 2021-03-04(5)(c)

As applicable here, if the jury finds that the impairment affected plaintiff’s ability to lead his normal life, the duration of any such impairment goes to the amount of damages to which plaintiff might be entitled, not to whether he is entitled to damages at all.

Section 500.3135(5)(c) requires only some effect on the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life, with no minimum duration.

Zeliasko v. Abdulkareem M Al-Dorough · filed 2022-06-16(5)(c)

The impairment need only have some effect on the person’s general ability to live their life, and there is no temporal limitation.

A serious impairment of body function must affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed by comparing life before and after the accident.

Quint v. Estate of Martin Jay Tibbitts · filed 2022-04-07(5)(c)

In sum, a comparison of plaintiff’s life before and after the October 2018 accident shows that the accident did not affect his ability to live his normal life.

Under § 500.3135(5), whether injuries affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life can present a fact question on the serious-impairment threshold.

Laskos v. Maples · filed 2023-05-25(5)

This testimony created a question of fact whether plaintiff’s injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Whether plaintiff’s injuries amounted to a serious impairment of a body function was a question of fact that remained to be litigated.

A serious impairment need only affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life; it need not destroy that ability or affect every part of life.

Wilson v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois · filed 2023-11-09(5)

Wilson’s injuries did not completely destroy her normal life, did not impact every facet of her life, and have improved or resolved over time. But the legal threshold only requires evidence “that a person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life has been affected, not destroyed.”

Section 500.3135(5)(c) requires an impairment to affect the injured person’s ability to lead a normal life; a sprained ankle with diminishing pain and only modest weight gain did not create a fact question on serious impairment.

Dean v. Stallworth-Hunter · filed 2024-03-28(5)(c)

In light of that evidence, we cannot say the trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff “suffered serious impairment of [a] body function” as that term is defined in MCL 500.3135(5).

Section 500.3135(5)(c) requires only that an impairment affect the injured person’s ability to lead a normal life; a relatively modest change may satisfy that requirement.

Estate of Willie May Turnage v. Quincy Hall · filed 2024-08-15(5)(c)

Although defendants argue these impacts are de minimis, the statute simply requires that the injury “affected” the decedent’s ability to lead a normal life.

An impairment may affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life even when the person can continue ordinary activities but experiences pain while doing them.

Davis v. Hurd · filed 2023-07-06(5)(c)

The trial court’s statement that plaintiff did not meet the threshold for serious impairment because “you can still do everything that you wanna do but you have pain when you do it” indicated a failure to appreciate that its task was to evaluate whether there was evidence that plaintiff’s general ability to live his normal life was “influenced” or “affected” by the impairment.

An impairment may affect a person’s general ability to lead a normal life even when its impact lasts only a few months.

Hill v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company · filed 2024-05-30(5)(c)

It is not outcome-determinative that the impact from Hill’s impairment lasted only a few months.

Evidence that an accident-related impairment kept an injured person from working and performing household tasks can create a factual issue about whether it affected the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Jamal Al-Rahimi v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2023-08-17(5)(c)

Plaintiff further testified that his doctor disabled him from performing replacement services or housework, and there was documentary evidence that plaintiff’s father performed replacement services. Additionally, plaintiff testified that he worked full-time as a driver, and he stopped working between the time of the accident and March 17, 2020, or approximately six months. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, plaintiff’s evidence did present a factual issue regarding the accident and its impact on his general ability to live a normal life.

An impairment must affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life; a de minimis effect on caring for children does not meet that threshold.

Humphrey v. Marcel a Flores · filed 2023-09-21(5)

On this record, we cannot conclude that the wrist-related impairment affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life relative to the care of her children—any effect was de minimis.

Section 500.3135(5) permits consideration of the volume of medical appointments when deciding whether an injury affected a person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Croskey v. Tank · filed 2025-09-18(5)

While neither party provides this Court much in the way of caselaw, we cannot find any caselaw ourselves that would preclude considering the volume of doctor’s appointments as a consideration in whether an injury impeded one’s ability to lead a normal life.

Section 500.3135(5) allows a serious impairment claim to proceed when evidence of observable symptoms and limits on work or ordinary activities raises factual questions about the impairment and its effect on normal life.

Stewart v. Szymborski · filed 2025-09-19(5)

Stewart raised a genuine question of material fact about whether he suffered an objectively manifested impairment of body function by presenting evidence that he was experiencing muscle spasms and reduced range of motion. Likewise, Whitson presented evidence of muscle spasms and reduced ranges of motion. ... Accordingly, there is a question of fact about whether the impairments affected plaintiffs’ ability to engage in their employment. ... Plaintiffs, therefore, raised genuine questions of material fact.

A serious impairment of body function must affect the injured person’s general ability to lead a normal life, assessed by comparing life before and after the accident.

Armstrong Jr v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company · filed 2025-12-23(5)(c)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Section 500.3135(5)(c) requires consideration of extensive time spent attending medical appointments when deciding whether an impairment affected a person’s general ability to lead a normal life.

Oganyan v. Black Tiger Trucking LLC · filed 2026-01-16(5)(c)

Because the evidence indicates that their normal lives, prior to the accident, did not include devoting such a significant amount of time to attending medical appointments, their extensive time spent doing so must be considered when determining whether each plaintiff’s general ability to lead his or her normal lives was affected by their impairments.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) limits an insured motorist’s liability for negligently caused economic loss to amounts beyond payable personal protection benefits, but does not shield an uninsured motorist from liability for economic loss.

Schigur v. West Bend Mutual Insurance · filed 1978-01-05(2)(c)

While an insured motorist is only liable for negligently caused economic loss that is in excess of personal protection benefits payable, MCLA 500.3135(2)(c); MSA 24.13135(2)(c), an uninsured motorist is given no immunity from tort liability for economic loss.

Section 500.3135(2) abolishes tort liability for ordinary economic loss from a motor vehicle accident, so an injured employee cannot recover that loss again from the tortfeasor.

Flower v. Gensterblum · filed 1978-10-18(2)

As noted above, the worker's compensation act confers upon the injured employee an immediate right to recover economic damages from the employer's insurer. Under the no-fault act, specifically MCL 500.3135, the employee is not allowed to seek a second recovery for these damages from the tortfeasor: "tort liability [for economic loss] is abolished", MCL 500.3135(2).

Section 500.3135 does not protect a person who failed to obtain required motor vehicle insurance; that person remains subject to traditional tort liability without the subsection (1) injury thresholds.

Smith v. Sutherland · filed 1979-10-15(2)

We hold, therefore, that an individual who has failed to obtain "security" as required by MCL 500.3101; MSA 24.13101 is not entitled to the protection of § 3135 and as to that individual, traditional tort liability is retained. If, in this case, the defendant owner's car is found to have been uninsured, plaintiff need not meet the thresholds of § 3135(1) and would attempt to recover under traditional tort theory and procedure.

Section 500.3135(1) does not require a serious impairment of body function to recover noneconomic loss from an uninsured motorist.

Jones v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange · filed 1982-03-21(1)

It is not meant to abolish tort liability in whole or in part for those outside of the no-fault act. To recover against an uninsured motorist for noneconomic loss, a plaintiff does not have to meet the "serious impairment” threshold of MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1).

Section 500.3135 requires a claimant seeking noneconomic damages under uninsured motorist coverage to meet the serious impairment of body function threshold.

Caplan v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange · filed 1980-10-27(1)

If a motorist is uninsured he may be sued for all economic loss as well as above-threshold non-economic loss.” ... It is clear, therefore, that the arbitration decision was correct.

Section 500.3135(1) does not require a threshold injury to recover noneconomic loss from an uninsured motorist.

Stephenson v. Associated General Insurance · filed 1985-12-17(1)

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the threshold requirements in MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1) are inapplicable to suits against uninsured motorists for noneconomic loss.

Section 500.3135(1)'s threshold injury requirement does not apply to noneconomic-loss claims against uninsured motorists.

Auto Club Insurance v. Mack · filed 1988-06-22(1)

Because the uninsured motorist is outside the no-fault scheme of allocating the costs of accidents, he or she remains subject to tort liability. The conclusion is thus inescapable that the threshold requirements in MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1) are inapplicable to suits against uninsured motorists for noneconomic loss.

Section 500.3135(1) limits an uninsured motorist’s tort liability for noneconomic loss to injuries involving death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.

Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. Hill · filed 1988-10-07(1)

We hold that, pursuant to MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1), uninsured motorists are subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars uninsured motorists from recovering noneconomic damages without violating Michigan’s equal protection or due process guarantees.

Stevenson v. Reese · filed 2000-04-19(2)(c)

Accordingly, we hold that MCL 500.3135(2)(c); MSA 24.13135(2)(c) does not violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Michigan Constitution and the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars an owner driving an uninsured vehicle from recovering noneconomic damages even if the owner believed the vehicle was insured.

Chop v. Zielinski · filed 2001-04-05(2)(c)

Plaintiff claims that she was innocently uninsured given that her ex-husband told her the car at issue was, in fact, insured. Plaintiff reads a scienter requirement into subsection 3135(2)(c). We refuse to read such a requirement into the statute where it is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the act itself.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars noneconomic damages when an uninsured driver has proprietary or possessory use of the vehicle for more than thirty days, even if someone else holds title.

Kessel v. Rahn · filed 2001-03-22(2)(c)

By extension, we conclude that plaintiff was driving “her own vehicle” at the time of the accident and, therefore, is precluded under § 3135 from maintaining an action for noneconomic damages because of her failure to maintain the required insurance.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) does not bar an uninsured nonresident motorist from recovering noneconomic damages when the motorist’s vehicle was not required to be registered in Michigan and was operated there for no more than thirty days in the calendar year.

McGhee v. Helsel · filed 2004-06-01(2)(c)

Because plaintiffs vehicle was not required to be registered in Michigan, MCL 500.3101 did not require plaintiff to carry no-fault automobile insurance. Under MCL 500.3102(1), a nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle not registered in Michigan must maintain security if the vehicle is operated in Michigan for an aggregate of more than thirty days in any calendar year. Plaintiff did not exceed this thirty-day period. Thus, MCL 500.3135(2)(c) does not apply in this case and does not preclude plaintiff from recovering noneconomic damages.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars an uninsured motorist’s noneconomic damages claim under the threshold exception in subsection (1), but does not bar recovery for intentionally caused harm under subsection (3)(a).

Gray v. Chrostowski · filed 2012-12-06(2)(c)

In sum, pursuant to the plain language of the statutory provisions at issue, we conclude that MCL 500.3135(2)(c) bars an uninsured motorist from recovering noneconomic damages for claims that arise under the threshold exception to tort immunity set forth in MCL 500.3135(1). In contrast, MCL 500.3135(2)(c) does not preclude an uninsured motorist from recovering noneconomic damages arising from intentionally caused harm under MCL 500.3135(3)(a).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars an uninsured driver who owns the vehicle from recovering damages, even when conditions for transferring title remain unfulfilled.

Lanter v. Stephens · filed 2015-01-29(2)(c)

However, this argument misstates the law—as noted, it is inconsequential for purposes of MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i) whether conditions precedent to the agreement to transfer ownership of a car are satisfied. ... Accordingly, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was the “owner” of the Impala as that term is used in MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i). He is thus prohibited by MCL 500.3135(2)(c) from bringing this action against defendants, and the trial court correctly granted defendants summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars noneconomic damages for a driver operating an improperly insured vehicle, and a policy issued to a nonowner does not make the vehicle properly insured.

Adams v. Curtis · filed 2017-04-11(2)(c)

But, the injured person is not entitled to damages if she was operating a vehicle that was not properly insured at the time the injury occurred. MCL 500.3135(2)(c). To insure a vehicle properly, an owner of the vehicle must maintain the insurance on that vehicle. MCL 500.3101(1). If a vehicle is not insured by an owner (titled or constructive), then the vehicle cannot be properly insured under Michigan law. Thus, it is not sufficient for a non- owner to insure a vehicle, at least when noneconomic damages or other benefits are sought. See Barnes v Farmers Ins Exch, 308 Mich App 1, 8; 862 NW2d 681 (2014).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) does not support summary disposition of a negligence claim when a factual question remains whether the vehicle owner maintained the required no-fault insurance.

Henderson v. King · filed 2017-11-28(2)(c)

Similarly, given there remained an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff maintained the requisite insurance under MCL 500.3101(1), summary disposition was not warranted as to defendants King and D&V Excavating, LLC. See MCL 500.3135(2)(c).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars an owner operating her own vehicle from recovering noneconomic tort damages when the vehicle lacks the security required by section 500.3101.

Easter v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company · filed 2018-03-20(2)(c)

As conceded by Easter in the trial court, this same reasoning supports the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to Hochstetler because an owner operating her own vehicle that does not have the security required by MCL 500.3101 is precluded from seeking noneconomic tort damages under MCL 500.3135(2)(c).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars damages for an owner operating an uninsured motor vehicle, but does not limit a motorcyclist’s right to recover damages.

Brickey v. McCarver · filed 2018-04-17(2)(c)

The language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) is unambiguous: individuals injured while operating a motor vehicle that is both owned by them and uninsured in violation of MCL 500.3101 are not entitled to recover damages. MCL 500.3135(2)(c). Motorcycles are not motor vehicles under the no-fault act. MCL 500.3102(2)(i)(i). Accordingly, MCL 500.3135(2)(c) does not limit the right of motorcyclists to recover damages.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars tort damages for a driver operating their own vehicle without required no-fault security, but a factual dispute over whether a constructive owner obtained that security precludes summary disposition on the bar.

Willis Jr v. Doe · filed 2018-08-21(2)(c)

Second, with regard to third-party claims, MCL 500.3135(2)(c) provides damages for a tort claim “shall not be assessed in favor of a party who was operating his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurred and did not have in effect for that motor vehicle the security required by section 3101 at the time the injury occurred.” ... Because, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, these facts allow for a reasonable inference that Willis’s girlfriend was a constructive owner, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of Progressive and Fodal.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars an owner who failed to insure the vehicle as required from recovering noneconomic damages.

Edwards v. Henderson · filed 2019-01-15(2)(c)

Because plaintiff failed to insure the Tahoe as required by MCL 500.3101(1), she was barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) and was barred from recovering ... noneconomic damages under MCL 500.3135(2)(c).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars damages for a person injured while operating their own vehicle without the security required by section 3101.

Ellis v. Bello · filed 2019-06-11(2)(c)

MCL 500.3135(2)(c) provides that “[d]amages shall not be assessed in favor of a party who was operating his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurred and did not have in effect for that motor vehicle the security required by section 3101 at the time the injury occurred.” Again, plaintiff did not have a Michigan no-fault insurance policy as required by MCL 500.3101, and plaintiff is not entitled to reform his New York insurance policy into a Michigan no-fault insurance policy because there was no mutual mistake. Accordingly, plaintiff was not entitled to recover noneconomic losses arising from Bello’s alleged negligence, and summary disposition in favor of Bello was proper.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) does not bar an owner’s tort claim when a third party obtained the required no-fault insurance for the owner’s vehicle.

Smith v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company · filed 2020-07-02(2)(c)

The Court in Dye concluded that a vehicle owner’s statutory obligation to maintain insurance on the vehicle does not require that the owner personally procure the insurance. Rather, that obligation may be satisfied by a third-party obtaining the insurance, such as the father in Dye or the mother in this case. ... This also requires a determination that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s tort claim against Gocaj.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars an owner from recovering tort damages when rescission leaves the owner’s vehicle uninsured at the time of the accident.

McCarty v. Akins · filed 2021-01-21(2)(c)

It is undisputed that plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Additionally, as explained earlier, plaintiff did not have insurance on her vehicle at the time of the accident, due to the effect of the rescission. Consequently, plaintiff did not fulfill the requirements of MCL 500.3101 as it then applied and, by extension, could not make a PIP claim under the then- applicable version of MCL 500.3113 or a claim for tort liability under the then-applicable version of MCL 500.3135.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) does not bar tort damages when the driver had the required insurance at the time of injury, even if the policy was later rescinded for fraud.

Estate of Calvin Bernard v. Avers · filed 2021-04-08(2)(c)

Accordingly, because Bernard had the policy with Grange at the time of the accident and that policy constituted proper security for purposes of MCL 500.3101(1), we conclude that the bar to recovery in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) does not apply in this case.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) does not bar a third-party negligence claim when the driver had no-fault insurance at the time of the accident, even if the insurer later rescinded the policy for fraud.

Wilmore-Moody v. Zakir · filed 2021-05-06(2)(c)

In this case, it was undisputed that Wilmore-Moody had an insurance policy with Everest at the time of the accident and that Everest subsequently rescinded the policy on the basis of fraud. Hence, the bar to recovery in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) does not apply with respect to Wilmore- Moody’s third-party negligence claim against Zakir.

Section 500.3135(2)(c) precludes a driver from pursuing third-party no-fault benefits when the driver lacked the required vehicle insurance at the time of injury; coverage that has not been rescinded does not trigger the preclusion.

Nelson v. Owusu · filed 2022-09-15(2)(c)

Moreover, because the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to Progressive on the propriety of rescission, plaintiff has not yet been stripped of the insurance coverage from Progressive, so she manifestly cannot yet be viewed as an uninsured driver subject to the preclusive effect of MCL 500.3135(2)(c).

Section 500.3135(2)(c) bars third-party tort claims by a person injured while operating their own vehicle if they failed to maintain the insurance required by section 500.3101(1).

Epps v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2022-11-03(2)(c)

Because plaintiff failed to maintain the required coverage under MCL 500.3101(1), her third-party claims were barred by MCL 500.3135(2)(c).