Plаintiff appeals as of right from a trial court order granting defendant summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiff commenced this suit to obtain damages for injuries sustained in an automobilе accident which occurred on April 26, 1983. Plaintiff alleged serious impairment of a body function and permanent serious disfigurement. Defendant moved for summary judgment on both issues. On Fеbruary 8, 1985, the trial court filed a written opinion concluding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of a body function or a permanent serious disfigurement. Defendant submitted a proposed order of summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff objected on the ground that the trial court’s written opinion was not dispositive of plаintiff’s $400 mini-tort claim. Over plaintiff’s objections, the trial court entered the order of summary judgment and dismissed all claims against defendant.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred when it determined that he did not suffer a "serious impairment of body function.” We disagree.
When there is no material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of a plaintiffs injuries, cоurts are to decide as a matter of law whether there has been a "serious impairment of body function” under Michigan’s no-fault act, MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). See
Cassidy v McGovern,
Serious impairment of a body function is decided on a case-by-case basis under the following three-part test: (1) the impairment must be of an important body function; (2) the impairment must be serious; and (3) the injuries must be objectively manifested.
Williams v Payne,
To determine whether an injury meets the threshold requirement of impairment of an important body function, the injured рlaintiffs ability to lead a normal lifestyle must be considered. Simple difficulty or inconvenience in daily life does not meet the threshold.
Morris v Levine,
In the instant casе, plaintiff suffered from a chest injury which was diagnosed immediately after the accident as a cardiac contusion. Following the accident, plaintiff had a mark from thе steering wheel left on his chest by the force with which he struck the steering wheel. Plaintiff suffered lacerations, including a jagged cut to the right eyelid. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we believe he suffered at least a temporary impairment of an important body function. Immediately after the accident, plaintiffs electrocardiogrаm showed an increased intraventricular conduction time. We agree with plaintiff that the correct functioning of the heart is an important body function. Nevertheless, wе believe that plaintiff failed to establish either of the other two threshold requirements: (1) that plaintiff suffered a "serious” impairment of body function; and (2) that plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested injury.
While plaintiffs injuries may have been temporarily measurable in the form of an irregular electrocardiogram and a mark on the chest, testimоny given by Dr. Overy indicated that the results of the hospital electrocardiogram were "not of any significance” and the later "R waves and right precordia leads” werе very common in young people. Further, electrocardiograms taken one and one-half months and one year after the accident were complеtely normal. Dr. Overy stated that there was no evidence that plaintiff suffered any permanent injuries as a result of the automobile accident and that he thought plaintiff wаs "home clear with no worry about future cardiac damage.”
Although plaintiff complained of chest discomfort following the accident, no medical evidence *185 was submitted to show that the pain was tied to a heart condition caused by the accident. Medically unsubstantiated pain and suffering does not meet Michigan’s no-fault threshоld for recovery for noneconomic loss. Cassidy, supra, p 505.
In addition, plaintiffs injuries cannot be considered serious when viewed in light of the other no-fault thresholds, i.e., death and permanent serious disfigurement. Plaintiffs ability to lead a normal lifestyle does not appear to be seriously impaired by the injuries sustained in the accident. In order to sustain a clаim of impairment of an important body function, the plaintiffs ability to lead a normal lifestyle must be adversely affected. Morris, supra. In this case plaintiff testified that he was told to "takе it easy” after the accident. Plaintiff did not take a summer job or involve himself in strenuous activity following his injury. No other testimony or evidence was given which would indicate that plaintiffs lifestyle was otherwise affected. Plaintiff was a student at Grand Valley State College before and after the accident.
We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish that the injuries he suffered were objectively manifested and that any impairment he suffered was serious when compared with the other no-fault thresholds, i.e., death or serious permanent disfigurement. Cassidy, supra, p 503.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in determining that he did not suffer a "permanent serious disfigurement.” Again, we disagree.
Where there is no material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of a plaintiffs injuries, the threshold question of permanent serious disfigurement is a question of statutory construction to be resolvеd by the court as a matter of law.
Kosack v Moore,
This Court’s review of the trial court’s decision whether a plaintiff has suffered a permanent serious disfigurement was aptly stated in
Williams, supra,
Disfigurement goes to the physical characteristics of an injury rather than the injury’s effect on the victim’s lifestyle. Ascertaining the seriousness of disfigurement may often require physical observation by the trial court. ... In disfigurement cases based on physical observation, the appellate courts must grant great deference to the observations of the trial court on what is, in effect, a factual conclusion about the severity of an injury. The victims cannot be expected to parade their maladies through an aрpellate courtroom. The trial court is expected to make adequate findings on the record. GCR 1963, 517.1. It will describe the injuries and reach a legal conclusion on whether they meet the threshold. We will review the trial court’s determination, reversing only when the court has abused its discretion.
According to the surgeon who treated plaintiff, the right eyelid wound was just over one inch in length and "jagged” or "star shaped.” The resulting scar was considered to be permanent. Plaintiff’s physician recommended that he apply a sun screen to the area of the scar should he be exposed to significant, direct sunlight.
Although no photographs were included in the record now before this Cоurt, from plaintiff’s testi *187 mony and the trial court’s conclusions in its opinion, we conclude that plaintiffs scar is not immediately and readily noticeable. Plaintiff admitted that people who did not know him would not "really notice” the scar. We agree with the trial court that plaintiff has not suffered a permanent serious disfigurement.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erroneously dismissed his "mini-tort” claim brought pursuant to MCL 500.3135(2)(d); MSA 24.13135(2)(d). Under the statute, a person remains subject to tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, for damages up to $400 to motor vehicles, to the extent that damages are not covered by insurance.
From our review of plaintiff’s complaint, we conclude that he did not state a claim for damages under § 3135. Plaintiff’s averment that he "claims all damages allowable under Michigan law as a consequence of the negligence of this defendant” is insufficient insofar as it purports to be an allegation of a cause of action under § 3135.
Affirmed.