Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 217237; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Whitbeck, and Martlew; 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)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era: 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim for serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case complained of muscle spasms, some numbness in his extremity, pain in his neck and sleep difficulties. However, the court noted that, “The spasms were noted during only one doctor’s office visit, the resultant limited range of motion was minimal, and the range of motion problem was resolved within a month. There is no evidence that the discomfort from the numbness, which occasionally occurred during day time, prevented him from using his hands or legs, or that these sleep interruptions prevented him from doing anything he desired.”
The court went on to say that although the injuries were objectively manifested and involved important body functions, the injuries did not affect plaintiff’s ability to lead his normal life. In this regard, the court stated, “Overall, these injuries had no appreciable effect on plaintiff’s life other than to cause him to miss one day of work and a hunting trip. While plaintiff himself restricted his activities, he admittedly could do everything he wanted to do, including working, driving, lifting, working around the house, shopping, sailing, and going out socially. Therefore, any injuries did not affect his ability to lead a normal life.”
In reaching its decision, the court observed that “Because the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function is the same as the definition adopted in Cassidy v McGovern, it is appropriate to refer to Cassidy and cases decided thereunder in deciding this case.” Based upon the foregoing analysis, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant.
