Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 195673; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Neff; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a third party liability tort claim, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function. Utilizing the threshold standard articulated by the Supreme Court in DiFranco v Pickard, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that no reasonable mind could conclude that plaintiff’s injury constituted a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff claimed pain and loss of mobility in her left shoulder. However, x-rays taken in the emergency room failed to reveal any observable injury. Plaintiff’s treating physician reported that plaintiff had retained full range of motion in her shoulder, and that she would be able to return to work as a motel maid in two weeks after he had initially examined her. Plaintiff admitted that no doctor had ever placed any work or recreational restrictions on her. In addition, plaintiff apparently had no ongoing medical treatment, other than to follow instructions to do "stretching and strengthening exercises." The Court of Appeals disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that the trial judge erroneously based his ruling on the “objectively manifested injury” rule rejected by the DiFranco court. The court held that a review of the transcript from the summary disposition hearing indicates that the trial judge did not follow the rejected interpretation of the objectively manifested injury standard.
