Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #234184; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Gage and Meter; 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)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
On April 27, 1999, plaintiff was struck from the rear by a car driven by defendant. Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with neck sprain. X-rays revealed no objective neck injury.
In September, 1999, plaintiff filed suit alleging that she had sustained injuries to her neck, upper back, shoulders and aggravated preexisting conditions. Defendant moved for summary disposition. Defendant noted that plaintiff had a number of conditions that preexisted the accident, but that her principal complaint, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome did not manifest itself for nearly one year after the accident. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s expert, a dentist, could not state with any degree of certainty that plaintiff’s TMJ syndrome was caused by the accident, and the office notes of plaintiff’s treating dentist revealed that she had signs of TMJ syndrome several years before the accident.
In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit by a registered physical therapist offering the opinion that her condition of TMJ was caused by the accident and constituted a serious impairment of body function.
In upholding the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, the Court of Appeals found that the admissible evidence did not create an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. The affidavit of the registered physical therapist was not admissible as evidence to support or deny the grounds stated in the motion, because the physical therapist had not been included on plaintiff’s original witness list. The testimony of the physical therapist would not be admissible at trial absent an order of the court.
