Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 79891; Published
Judges Wahls, Bronson, and Megargle; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 142 Mich App 145; 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:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion affirms the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the threshold injury issue. Plaintiff in this case sustained soft tissue injuries. She was examined and/or treated by at least six physicians. Her primary treating physician concluded the Plaintiff had a chronic cervical strain with persistent left shoulder pain, limited range of motion, spasticity and tenderness. He advised against activities which involved excessive or repetitive reaching and pulling. He was of the opinion that plaintiff could resume all normal activity four months after the accident date. The other doctors who examined her could find either nothing wrong or only mild residual soft tissue symptoms. Plaintiff’s chiropractor diagnosed "spinal subluxation, pain, tenderness and spasticity."
Plaintiff argued that her soft tissue injuries were "objectively manifested by identifiable limitation of range of motion and by muscle spasms," citing Argenta v Shahan (Item No. 727). With regard to the sufficiency of muscle spasm as an objective manifestation of injury, the court stated the following:
"Plaintiff perceives a split in this court on the question of whether limitations of motion are objective manifestations of injury because in Williams v Payne (Item No. 708), this court recognized that plaintiff had limited range of motion and yet concluded that plaintiff’s injury was not objectively manifested. We are not prepared to announce a split on this issue as Argenta and Williams may both have been correct on their specific facts. Whether an alleged limitation of motion constitutes objective manifestation of injury should be subject to critical analysis of the medical basis for the limitation. A limitation self-imposed because of real or perceived pain is not objective manifestation. . . .In the instant case, the various doctors disagreed whether there was limitation of motion and whether there was objective manifestation of the injury. There is a question of fact which we may not decide in the context of a motion for summary judgment. However, the fact question is not material to decision in this case."
The court went on to say that whatever the nature of Plaintiff’s impairment, there was insufficient evidence that it was serious. The court stated:
"Assuming limited motion in the neck, Plaintiff has not shown how it has affected her general ability to lead a normal life. She has not claimed that there were any normal activities she cannot perform. The fact that she did not work on the assembly line several months because of medical disability is not probative of her general ability to lead a normal life. The only evidence in plaintiff’s favor on this issue is her doctor's advice to avoid activities involving excessive or repetitive reaching and pulling and causing undue strain to the cervical region. We conclude mat such advice is insufficient to create a question of fact whether plaintiff is seriously impaired under the no-fault statute."