Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #228078; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Doctoroff and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim alleging serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case suffered injuries in two accidents. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against the tortfeasor in the second accident because plaintiff had failed to prove that the injuries sustained met the threshold requirement of serious impairment of body function. In affirming the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition, the court found that there was no material factual dispute as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. The court noted that plaintiff’s injuries consisted only of a muscle strain in her neck and back. X-rays were negative and there were no objective injuries noted. The court noted that, “Although medical records showed that plaintiff complained of increased pain from the injuries sustained in the first accident, it is the plaintiff’s injuries, not her pain, that must be medically substantiated through objective manifestation.” The court also noted that plaintiff testified at deposition that with medication, “her symptoms resolved after a couple days and her condition was the same as it had been after the first accident.” Therefore, there was inadequate evidence that plaintiff’s second accident “caused an objectively verifiable change in plaintiff’s condition” and the trial court was therefore correct in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
