GJELINA VATAY V MACOMB CO SHERIFF'S DEPT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GJELINA VATAY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 227533
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 99-000197-NI
v
MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT and THOMAS WRIGHT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
The circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s automobile negligence action against defendants
based on her failure to show a serious impairment of body function as required by MCL
500.3135(1). Plaintiff appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing her claim, asserting that the
evidence showed that she sustained objectively manifested injuries which seriously impaired a
body function. We find no error. There is no material dispute regarding the nature of plaintiff’s
physical injuries, so the issue of serious impairment was a question of law for the court to decide.
Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 343; 612 NW2d 838 (2000). The medical evidence
presented indicated that while plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries, none of them seriously
affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Plaintiff’s fractured bones were simply
splinted and healed. The mild disc bulges in her spine did not constitute serious injuries
requiring treatment. Her pain due to muscle and back strain or sprain was treated without
surgery. Any real disability suffered by plaintiff was short-lived, and any pain or residual
impairment did not appear due to plaintiff’s physical injuries. The circuit court did not err by
finding that plaintiff failed to show an objectively manifested impairment of an important body
function which affected her general ability to lead her normal life. MCL 500.3135(7).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
