United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case No. 94-CV-71185-DT;
Judge Denise Page Hood; Unpublished
Official Federal 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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:
After a bench trial in this third-party action seeking non-economic damages, Judge Hood entered an Opinion and Order of no cause of action on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that he had sustained a serious impairment of body function.
The parties had stipulated to negligence and the matter proceeded to trial on the issue of damages only. Plaintiff provided testimony that he injured his neck, knees and back as a result of the subject accident. One of plaintiff s treating physicians found that the left knee had some tenderness and a small amount of swelling, but that the knee had full range of motion. The physician also found that the knee appeared normal and subsequent evaluations revealed nothing mechanically wrong with the knees. This physician found no medical evidence to support the pain that the plaintiff claimed he was experiencing in his knees. A second treating physician performed arthroscopic surgery upon the knees, and found the presence of plica. However, this physician opined that the condition existed prior to the accident, and could be congenjtal. An independent medical examination by a third physician revealed no objective evidence to substantiate plaintiffs knees, back or neck problems.
The court found that other than the existence of plica, there was no medical evidence to support plaintiffs claim of pain in his knees. The court further found that the proofs demonstrated plaintiff did not have a problem in walking, and only missed a few days of work following the arthroscopic surgery. Based upon this evidence, the court found that plaintiff had failed to establish a serious impairment of body function. As the court found that the plaintiff had not met the threshold requirement of §3135 of the no-fault act (MCLA 500.3135), it concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to receive non-economic damages resulting from the accident.
