Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85470; Unpublished
Judges Bronson, Beasley, and Horn; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of summary disposition by the trial court in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function and serious permanent disfigurement.
Plaintiff Donna Fuller suffered neck and back injuries for which she treated with her doctor from December 1,1980 until September 8,1981. Her doctor indicated that he found a limitation of motion in the lumbar spine and spasm in all directions. After 10 months of physical therapy, Donna Fuller still complained of headaches, neck and arm pain. She was diagnosed as suffering from traumatic lumbar myofascitis and interligamentous sprain and strain of the cervical spine. Plaintiff’s daughter, Shelly Fuller, also sustained soft tissue injuries for which she treated with her doctor from December 1, 1980 until June of 1981. She was found by her doctor to have mild limitation of motion with mild spasm in all directions, and diagnosed as suffering from mild traumatic lumbar myofascitis.
In ruling upon the serious impairment of body function issues, the trial court found that neither plaintiff had established that their injuries prevented them from leading normal lives, and plaintiffs had failed to support their claims with any objective evidence of injuries. Plaintiff Shelly Fuller also suffered a laceration on her upper lip, as well as loss of a nerve in one of her teeth which required root canal treatment. The Court held that neither of these injuries set the threshold of serious impairment or serious permanent disfigurement. A 1.5 centimeter scar above the left eyebrow of plaintiff Donna Fuller was also found not to be a serious disfigurement. Although this decision was released subsequent to DiFranco, it was apparently decided based upon the Cassidy guidelines.