Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 214655; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, O'Connell, and Wilder; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant finding that plaintiffs injury did not constitute serious impairment of body function under the amended version of section 3135 of the No-Fault Act. Plaintiffs injury was described as a "cervical strain" resulting in "somatic dysfunction." All x-rays and diagnostic tests were normal except for a "very small central disc herniation" which was not detected until six months after plaintiffs injury. Plaintiffs physicians testified that plaintiff could engage in whatever activities she could tolerate and plaintiff was not restricted in her work or leisure activities other than by her own complaints of pain. Plaintiff further testified that her employment as a supervisor of a home for the mentally ill was not affected by her injuries. Moreover, plaintiff was able to take care of her own home and her children even though she complained of pain. The court affirmed the trial court ruling that plaintiff had failed to show that her injury constituted serious impairment of body function. In this regard, the court stated, "we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to whether plaintiff suffered an impairment of a body function that was serious and objectively manifested." With regard to the requirement that an injury be objectively manifested, the court specifically cited the Supreme Court's earlier opinion in DiFranco v Pickard for the proposition that plaintiff must show that her noneconomic damages arose out of a "medically identifiable injury which seriously impaired a body function." The court stated that, "Implicit in this definition is a requirement that the impairment be serious." The court went on to say that, "When determining whether an impairment is serious, relevant factors may include the extent of the impairment, the length of time the impairment of body function lasts, the type of treatment required to rectify the impairment, and a comparison of the plaintiffs activities and abilities before the impairment." Taking all of these factors into consideration, the court found that plaintiffs injury was not objectively manifested and it did not serious impair any important body function.
[Author's Comment: The court's statement that the new statutory definition of serious impairment of body function contains the "implicit" requirement, that the impairment be serious, may very well be reading an element into the definition which does not appear in the specific statutory language. The definition of serious impairment of body function is contained in section 3135(7) which reads as follows: "As used in this section, 'serious impairment of body function' means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life." As this language confirms, subsection 7 actually defines the term serious impairment of body function and does so by requiring proof of three (3) elements — objective manifestation, importancy of body function and life impact. The language of the statute does not contain a separate element of "seriousness." Seriousness is established if the other elements of the definition are satisfied. Thus, the court's statement that "implicit in this definition is a requirement that the impairment be serious" may be "judicial legislation" or, at best, dicta.]
