Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 203034; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Kelly, and Doctoroff; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion dealing with a third party automobile tort case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. The issues in this case were controlled by the Supreme Court's opinion in DiFranco v Pickard, as the case arose prior to the 1995 no-fault tort amendments. In applying the DiFranco standard, the Court of Appeals held that "reasonable minds could not differ as to the seriousness or non-seriousness of the injury." The plaintiff in this case sustained soft tissue injuries to the shoulder, arm, leg and right hip. Prior to the accident, plaintiff had been receiving regular chiropractic treatment for hip and back problems and continued this treatment after the accident Plaintiff’s chiropractor testified that her prior existing condition had been aggravated by the accident, and performed chiropractic adjustments a few times a week shortly after the accident and on an as-needed basis thereafter. Three weeks after the accident, plaintiff returned to her full-time work as a child day care provider. Approximately six weeks after the accident, plaintiff discontinued all physical therapy and her therapist noted that plaintiff had reduced symptoms and that "there was no pain at all." Plaintiff’s chiropractor prepared a written report stating that he believed "plaintiff had sustained a 15% permanent partial spinal impairment rated as 15% of the body as a whole as a result of the accident." In concluding that no reasonable mind could differ as to whether plaintiff’s injury constituted serious impairment of body function, the court noted that "a 15% permanent partial spinal limitation is not sufficiently serious to meet the threshold ... Plaintiff did not begin physical therapy until two months after the accident and had a total of seven treatments within the span of two weeks. At the time of discharge, although there was some stiffness, plaintiff was reported to have no pain at all, and that her range of motion had improved. Plaintiff was never recommended for surgery or hospitalization as a result of the alleged accident. Finally, even before the accident, her prior back and hip problems were causing her difficulty in undertaking her daily activities as a child day care provider. Accordingly, we find that reasonable minds could not differ on the fact that the accident did not cause plaintiff to sustain a severe impairment of a body function, as required under the no-fault act." Judge Michael Kelly concurred in result only.
