U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 97-72192;
Honorable Avern Cohn;_____________
Official Federal Reporter Citation: ________ ; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (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 a Memorandum and Order in this diversity action involving a claim for third-party liability, the court found as a matter of law that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious impairment of bodily function, and accordingly, granted summary judgment to defendant.
The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident when her car was struck from behind by a truck driven by defendant. The defendant was apparently going about 20 mph and according to plaintiff, struck plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear four or five times. The defendant subsequently admitted that he was negligent and that his negligence was a direct and proximate cause of the accident.
The plaintiff went to the hospital shortly after the accident, complaining of headache, dizziness, neck and back pain and nausea. X-rays of her back were normal. The emergency room doctor diagnosed plaintiff as having a mild closed head injury and an acute cervical strain. Two weeks later, a CT scan of her brain was negative. Plaintiff then underwent 12 weeks of physical therapy which improved her condition. However, she still experienced pain and discomfort, particularly when stretching and reaching. Fifteen months after the accident, she was diagnosed as having sustained a fractured sternum, which apparently occurred in the subject accident.
As a result of the injuries, plaintiff testified that she missed one week of work, although she continued to drive after the accident. For three or four months following the accident, her husband had to do the household chores, such as laundry, washing and vacuuming floors, and occasionally cooking. Furthermore, her husband and babysitter took care of plaintiff’s children, although plaintiff would feed the children.
Under the circumstances of this case, the court found that there was "a lack of evidence regarding how the impairment of an important body function affected plaintiff's general ability to lead her normal life." The court was also influenced by the fact that plaintiff was able to work at her job and had vacationed to foreign countries within a year following the accident, which were factors in the determination that plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to prove she had sustained a serious impairment of bodily function.
