Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #270862; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Kelly, and Fort Hood; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiff failed to show an objectively manifested impairment.
The plaintiff in this case sustained numerous bruises and abrasions as well as ill-defined injuries to his back and left elbow. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals determined that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an impairment capable of being verified by objective medical evidence. In so finding, the court noted that the initial x-rays showed a possible occult fracture of plaintiff’s left arm but subsequent x-rays showed no abnormalities. In addition, although an initial assessment showed swelling and muscle spasms along plaintiff’s rib cage, there was no evidence to suggest that this injury contributed to impairment of his elbow or back. Moreover, plaintiff’s doctor noted there was no evidence of muscle spasms. Finally, although plaintiff stated he was told an MRI revealed some kind of tendonitis in his back, the doctor’s report stated that x-rays of plaintiff’s thoracic spine revealed no obvious abnormalities. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, the evidence fails to establish the existence of an impairment capable of being verified by qualified medical personnel. The initial emergency room x-rays of plaintiff’s left arm showed a possible ‘occult fracture.’ However, the subsequent x-rays showed no abnormalities. When plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon examined him in December 2004, the doctor found that defendant’s left elbow had full range of motion with no pain or discomfort. Moreover, although an initial assessment by a nurse practitioner evidenced swelling and muscle spasms along plaintiff’s rib cage, no evidence exists to suggest that this injury contributed to an impairment of his elbow or back. Further, plaintiff’s doctor noted that there was no evidence of muscle spasms. Additionally, although plaintiff claimed he was told that an MRI revealed ‘some kind of tendonitis’ in his back, the doctor’s report states that x-rays of plaintiff’s thoracic spine revealed no obvious abnormalities and that there ‘is no evidence of spinal stenosis or any compression fractures.’”
