Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #223343; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Holbrook, Jr. and Murphy; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on plaintiff's claim of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff's injury was described by the court as “tendonitis” with no further elaboration. In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals focused on the lack of evidence regarding objective manifestation of injury. In this regard, the court stated, “There were no physical abnormalities which could account for plaintiff's complaints of pain and tenderness, and it is the injuries, not the pain, that must be medically substantiated through objective manifestation. Medical findings of tenderness and limited flexion do not rise to the level of objective manifestation. Plaintiff testified at deposition that the pain hampered her ability to stand or drive for long periods of time, but '[a] limitation self-imposed because of real or perceived pain is not objective manifestation.'”
Furthermore, with regard to 1995 PA 222, the court made the following observation, “Because 'the Legislature overturned the Supreme Court's DiFranco decision by codifying the tort threshold injury standards of Cassidy v McGovern,' and the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function is the same as that adopted in Cassidy, it is appropriate to refer to Cassidy and cases decided thereunder in deciding this case.” Based upon that rationale, the Court of Appeals cited several Cassidy era cases in support of the propositions articulated in the body of the opinion.
