Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 209092; Unpublished
Judges Markman, Saad, and Houk; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
Causation Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s third-party bodily injury tort claim.
Plaintiff was rear-ended in an automobile accident and claimed her injury constituted serious impairment of body function under section 3135(2) of the Act. Plaintiff’s injury was initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal pain. She had pre-existing degenerative disc disease. A month after the accident, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and 10 months after the accident was diagnosed with a lumbar disc herniation. Defendant moved for summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff had introduced no evidence whatsoever that plaintiff’s disc herniation or carpal tunnel syndrome were causally related to the accident.
The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis that plaintiff had not produced any evidence establishing that these conditions were related to plaintiff’s car accident. In this regard, the court stated:
"Plaintiff produced no evidence that established that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether her herniation and carpal tunnel syndrome were proximately caused by the accident.... No medical evidence indicated that plaintiff's herniation and carpal tunnel syndrome were proximately caused by the accident.... An equally if not more plausible explanation for the herniation was plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative disc disease. Similarly, plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was likely caused by her long-term use of computer equipment in her employment. A claimant must present evidence that would allow a finder of fact to conclude that it was more likely than not that but for the defendant's conduct, the injury would not have occurred.... Plaintiff did not create a question of fact regarding causation; the trial court correctly decided the issue as one of law. "
