Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #222589; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Gage and Miel; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on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 injury sustained by plaintiff was described as an “acute thoracic strain” involving back pain between the shoulders. However, x-rays revealed no abnormality and no objective evidence of injury was ever detected. Four months after the accident, plaintiff was found to have full range-of-motion in her cervical spine. The only clinical finding noted by plaintiff's physicians was “the presence of tenderness,” with respect to which the court stated, “however, tenderness is a subjective complaint.” Furthermore, the court noted that, “Plaintiff acknowledged that she was able to carry on with her daily activities, including caring for two young children.... No evidence demonstrated that plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested injury as a result of the accident. Her general ability to lead her normal life was not significantly altered by the injury.”
In so holding, the court referred to the earlier decision in Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333 (2000) for the proposition that, “In determining whether the impairment of the important body function is serious, the court should consider factors such as the extent of the injury, the treatment required, the duration of the disability, and the extent of residual impairment and prognosis for eventual recovery.”
