Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fisher v. Blankenship

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 2009No. Docket 285852Published

1DissentK. F. Kelly, J.

(dissenting.) I dissent. I do not disagree with the majority that there is no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s1 injuries: He fractured one front tooth and it was replaced with an implant. And, over three years after the accident, this implant and additional front teeth were replaced with a partial denture.2 I do, however, disagree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function or a permanent serious disfigurement as contemplated under § 3135(1) of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3135(1). Contrary to the majority, I would…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kreiner v. FischerMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Kern v. Blethen-ColuniMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Amerisure Insurance v. PlumbMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Nelson v. MyersMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Minter v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API