WILLIAM M ENSING V JOANNE A MILBOCKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM M. ENSING,
UNPUBLISHED
March 25, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 245479
Otsego Circuit Court
LC No. 02-009542-NI
JOANNE A. MILBOCKER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Saad and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition and denying his motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal
is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Auto
Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich App 468, 479; 642 NW2d 406 (2001).
A serious impairment of body function is “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(7). See also Kreiner v Fischer (On Remand), 256 Mich App 680, 686-687; 671
NW2d 95 (2003). For an impairment to be objectively manifested, there must be a medically
identifiable injury or a condition that has a physical basis. Jackson v Nelson, 252 Mich App 643,
652-653; 654 NW2d 604 (2002). Whether a person has suffered a serious impairment of body
function is a question of law for the court if there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and
extent of the injuries, or if there is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the
injuries but the dispute is not material to whether the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment
of body function. MCL 500.3135(2)(a).
In determining whether the impairment of the important body function is serious, the
court should consider factors such as the extent of the injury, the treatment required, the duration
of the disability, and the extent of residual impairment and prognosis for eventual recovery.
Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 341; 612 NW2d 838 (2000). In assessing the extent
of the injury, a court may compare the plaintiff’s lifestyle before and after the injury. May v
Sommerfield (After Remand), 240 Mich App 504, 506; 617 NW2d 920 (2000).
-1-
Plaintiff’s fractured wrist was objectively manifested via an x-ray. The use of one’s wrist
and arm is an important body function. Kroft v Kines, 154 Mich App 448, 452; 397 NW2d 822
(1986), vacated on other grounds 428 Mich 879; 402 NW2d 481 (1987). Plaintiff was released
to return to normal activities one month after the accident. He was discharged from his job, but
secured other employment. The ability to work is a significant element of a normal life.
Kreiner, supra, 688. Plaintiff’s lingering pain did not create an issue of fact as to whether his
injury resulted in a serious impairment. Kallio v Fisher, 180 Mich App 516, 518-519; 448
NW2d 46 (1989). Plaintiff had no physician-imposed restrictions on his activities, and remained
able to play basketball and softball and to engage in weightlifting. The evidence did not create
an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injury significantly altered his general ability to lead his
normal life. Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 250; 631 NW2d 760 (2001).
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Bill Schuette
-2-
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.
