Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 205360; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Murphy, and O'Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court finding as a matter of law that plaintiff’s stiffness in the back of his neck and upper back, diagnosed as a cervical and lumbar strain, did not rise to the level of a serious impairment of body function under section 3135(1) of the No-Fault Act under the DiFranco standard.
The medical evidence demonstrated that plaintiff sought treatment from her physician five (5) days after the automobile accident, complaining of stiffness in the back of her neck and upper back. She was diagnosed with cervical and lumbar strain. She saw her physician three (3) times over a span of six (6) months and received physical therapy and medication. Immediately after the accident, plaintiff was diagnosed with a 20% limitation in neck and back movement. Six (6) weeks after the accident, her range of motion in her neck had returned to normal and the range of motion in her back had improved. There was no evidence that plaintiff’s physician had placed any restrictions on her job-related activities when she returned to work as a dry cleaner one (I) month after the accident.
The Court of Appeals found that plaintiff had put forward no evidence indicating that any discomfort or other result of her accident significantly restricted or otherwise impaired an important body function, and therefore, reasonable minds could not conclude from the evidence before the trial court, that plaintiff sustained serious impairment of body function as a result of the accident.