Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 202296; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Neff, and Smolenski; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed grant of summary disposition, finding that plaintiff’s neck injury did not meet the serious impairment of body function threshold under the DiFranco standard, and further finding that the connection between plaintiff’s lower back condition and the accident was speculative.
In this case, plaintiff was rear-ended by a semi-truck owned by defendant. He informed medical personnel that he felt pain in his neck, back and knees. X-rays taken at the hospital were negative. Four (4) days later, plaintiff sought follow-up treatment with his personal physician. At that time, he reported that his condition had improved. By October 6,1993, approximately three (3) weeks following the accident, plaintiff reported that he was almost entirely free of pain and his physician concluded that no further treatment was required and plaintiff could return to work without restrictions. Subsequently, approximately four (4) months later, plaintiff made several visits to his physician for treatment of lower back pain.
Based upon the above evidence, the trial court granted the motion for summary disposition under the DiFranco standard, finding that plaintiff’s neck injury did not meet the serious impairment of body function threshold. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that plaintiff’s neck injury did not seriously impinge on his ability to engage in daily activities, did not prevent him from working, did not require complicated treatment, and was considered by his physician to have resolved within one (1) month of the accident Further, plaintiff’s physician did not attribute plaintiff’s lower back pain to the accident. In light of the evidence, the trial court affirmed summary disposition in favor of the defendant.
