United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Case No. 95-CV-70991-DT;
Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff; Unpublished
Official Federal Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (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 an Opinion authored by Judge Zatkoff in this third-party action, the court addressed the issue of whether plaintiff had sustained a serious impairment of body function as a result of a soft tissue injury to plaintiff’s neck and back following an automobile accident.
Plaintiff’s car was struck on the driver's door by a postal vehicle backing onto a street in order to turn around. While the government conceded liability for striking plaintiffs vehicle, there was some dispute as to whether the impact between the vehicles was sufficient to result in personal injury. However, the court concluded from the damage to plaintiff’s vehicle that significant impact had occurred, notwithstanding the lack of damage to the rear bumper of the postal vehicle.
Plaintiff’s physician diagnosed a musculoligamentous sprain of the neck and lower back, resulting in a restriction in his range of motion. Plaintiff was off from work for approximately four months due to the injury. The defendant had plaintiff examined by a physician of its choosing, who discounted plaintiffs claims of pain and restricted motion. However, the court was unpersuaded by the opinion of defendant's physician for three reasons: first, medical examinations performed at the request of the defendant have an "inherent tendency" for such an evaluation to be favorable to the defendant; second, the defendant's physician's opinions were based upon a single evaluation, whereas plaintiffs physician's opinions were based upon a series of examinations, and; third, the plaintiffs physician's diagnosis is consistent with the significant damage to plaintiffs vehicle.
The court found the injury to plaintiff’s neck and back to be a body function and that those body functions were seriously impaired for a four month period from the date of the accident until plaintiffs return to work. Accordingly, the court awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $7,500.
