TAYLOR R PETERSON V JENNIFER NICOLE RAUCH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JODY MAHAFFEY, as Next Friend of Taylor R.
Peterson, a Minor,
UNPUBLISHED
February 27, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 271054
Marquette Circuit Court
LC No. 05-042761-NI
JENNIFER NICHOLE RAUCH and JACK
RAUCH,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the circuit court granting defendants’ motion
for summary disposition. This case stems from a traffic accident in which plaintiff’s minor
daughter, Taylor, was injured. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument
under MCR 7.214(E).
Under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., “[a] person remains subject to tort liability
for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle
only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent
serious disfigurement.” MCL 500.3135(1). A serious impairment of body function is defined as
“an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects a person’s
general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(7). For an impairment to be
objectively manifested, “a plaintiff’s injury must be capable of objective verification by a
qualified medical person either because the injury is visually apparent or because it is capable of
detection through the use of medical testing.” Netter v Bowman, 272 Mich App 289, 305; 725
NW2d 353 (2006). Here, there is no dispute over the objective manifestation of the injury.
Moreover, the casting of Taylor’s arm and leg impaired an important body function. See Kern v
Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 340-341; 612 NW2d 838 (2000).
However, the record does not support the conclusion that Taylor’s impairment has
affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In determining whether an injury constitutes
impairment of an important body function, the court should consider the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of the injury, the treatment required, the duration of the
disability, the extent of residual impairment, and the prognosis for eventual recovery. Kreiner v
Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 133-134; 683 NW2d 611 (2004). Here, plaintiff was placed in casts
-1-
immobilizing her arm and leg for approximately one month. Following removal of the casts,
Taylor’s activities were not medically restricted. While she initially had some difficulty walking
following removal of the casts, there is no evidence that Taylor has suffered any residual
impairment or that her growth pattern has been negatively impacted. Indeed, plaintiff testified
that her daughter has no continuing physical disability. Plaintiff also testified that Taylor has
resumed the “tomboy” activities she engaged in before the accident. Accordingly, summary
disposition was properly granted in favor of defendants.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
