Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248914; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Jansen and Bandstra; 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)]
Objective Manifestation 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim. This case was decided without oral argument. Plaintiff, who suffered from spina bifida and had undergone spinal fusion surgery in 1991, was subsequently involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein plaintiff claimed she sustained ill-defined back injuries constituting serious impairment of body function. The court denied plaintiff’s claim, primarily on the basis that plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence that she had sustained an objectively manifested injury as a result of the accident. In this regard, the court stated:
“An objectively manifested impairment consists of a medically identifiable injury or a condition that has a physical basis. . . . Plaintiff experienced back pain both before and after the accident. Pain, in and of itself, is not an objectively manifested condition, and cannot be relied upon to establish the existence of a serious impairment of body function. . . . X-rays taken before and after the accident demonstrated no change in the condition of plaintiff’s spine. Initially, plaintiff’s physician stated that the CT myelogram, taken after the accident, demonstrated no stenosis (narrowing) above her spinal fusion. No evidence presented in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary disposition created an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested injury as a result of the accident. Absent such evidence, plaintiff was unable to make out a prima facie case that she suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court did not err in determining that the issue whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law under the circumstances. . . . Summary disposition was proper.”
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and in support of her motion, submitted a letter from her treating physician, who stated that a CT myelogram performed after the accident showed degenerative changes above plaintiff’s spinal fusion. Her physician opined that the accident accelerated the degenerative changes. With respect to this allegation, the court found that the letter from plaintiff’s physician in support of her motion for reconsideration was untimely and could have been presented in response to defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was properly denied.
