Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #239078; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, White and Hoekstra; 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)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff sustained unspecified shoulder injuries which resulted in shoulder pain presumably attributable to impingement. However, the impingement was not shown by objective evidence. In affirming the trial court's decision to grant summary disposition in favor of defendant, the court noted that plaintiff must prove there is a medically identifiable injury that has a physical basis, which plaintiff was unable to do in this case. The court noted that plaintiff's x-rays were normal and that his MRI was normal. Plaintiff's doctor opined that plaintiff's shoulder pain may be attributable to bone spurs but there was no proof those bone spurs were attributable to the accident. Plaintiff's doctors suspected some sort of impingement. However, “the impingement was not shown by any objective tests and [plaintiff's doctor] admitted that the swelling and inflamation could not be objectively diagnosed by objective testing.” Finally, the plaintiff exhibited limited range of motion during some exams but the court held “the evidence presented does not indicate if the range of motion tests were active or passive.” Therefore, the court concluded “because the evidence does not establish an objectively manifested condition that was caused by the accident, the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion.”
