Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263075; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Cavanagh, and Fort Hood; 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 [3135(7)]
Liability for Excess Economic Loss Caused by Insured Tortfeasors [3135(3)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
Plaintiff sustained a neck injury in a rear-end collision for which she initially sought treatment at the emergency room on the day of the accident for mild neck and knee pain. X-rays were found to be normal. An MRI of her cervical spine 10 months later was also found to be normal. When defendant filed a motion for summary disposition, plaintiff’s counsel failed to file a timely response to the motion but appeared at oral argument and claimed an EMG was positive for C5-C6 radiculopathy and that plaintiff had been noted to have muscle spasms and dizziness. The trial court granted the motion for summary disposition and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
On reconsideration, plaintiff’s counsel also argued plaintiff had a claim for excess economic damages under §3135(3)(c) which the trial court had failed to address. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determinations on both issues. The record evidence indicated plaintiff was able to maintain almost consistent full-time employment, as well as provide care and assistance to her developmentally disabled sister and her disabled father. Plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing a material dispute on the issue of whether she was entitled to allowable expenses and work loss benefits in excess of those provided by §3107.
With regard to the non-economic damage claim, the court held the evidence did not tend to establish plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. After seeking some initial treatment after the accident, plaintiff’s treatment course was very sporadic. An MRI of her neck was negative. Based upon the evidence of record, the Court of Appeals held plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she sustained an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that was proximately caused by the accident.
