Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 212350; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Gribbs, and White; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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:
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s third-party tort liability claim alleging serious impairment of body function. The case was decided under the 1995 amendments to section 3135 of the Act.
In this case, plaintiffs Brenda, Jeffrey and Bradley Matthews sustained soft tissue type injuries to their backs in a motor vehicle accident. They were taken to the hospital, treated and released. Approximately a month later, they began treating with a chiropractor who treated them for approximately 60 days after which they were released from treatment and not placed under any restrictions by any physician. Plaintiffs, however, continued to complain of headaches, back pain and stiffness. In affirming the trial court's grant of summary disposition, the court stated,
"The treatment plaintiffs received after the accident concluded within two months. Brenda Matthews' headaches did not warrant specialized testing or treatment. Each plaintiff continued to experience some head and neck pain following the accident; nevertheless, no evidence showed that either individual required continuing treatment, in the form of therapy or medication. The presence of lingering pain, in and of itself, does not create a jury question regarding whether an impairment is serious. Furthermore, no evidence showed that plaintiffs were prohibited from engaging in any work-related or recreational activities. Any restrictions on those activities were self-imposed. The trial court did not err in finding that reasonable minds could not differ concerning whether plaintiffs' injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function."
