Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 238011 and 238357; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, White, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld summary disposition for defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function, where plaintiff claimed that anti-inflammatory medication prescribed for whiplash injuries after the second of two car accidents had caused peptic ulcers.
In upholding the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s physician regarding the causation of the ulcers had not been properly submitted to the trial court, and thus was not properly considered on appeal. Even considering that evidence, however, the testimony did not support plaintiff’s claim that the use of these anti-inflammatory medications had caused her ulcers. Further, even if there were a causal link, there was no dispute that the ulcers had healed within several months. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had not committed error in concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that she suffered a serious impairment of an important body function regarding her peptic ulcers and a hiatal hernia.
With regard to claims that she suffered from muscle spasms and palpable trigger points in her neck and shoulders, the Court of Appeals held that these were objectively manifested injuries. However, plaintiff had not established that these conditions had affected her general ability to lead a normal life.
Further, the court noted that although plaintiff testified that she could not walk or stand for long without pain, and could not lift or do housework as she had before the accidents, no doctor restricted plaintiff from physical activity. Plaintiff missed a week or two of school altogether and clearly experienced severe pain, yet she continued with full loads in high school and, later, attended college, as well as worked part-time. Under these circumstances, the court held that plaintiff had failed to establish a serious impairment of body function.
