Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 160111; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, White, and Leiber;______(with Judges Doctoroff and Leiber Concurring in Result); 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion (Judges Doctoroff and Leiber concurring in the result only), the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition granted in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and further development of the record.
Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision on December 14, 1991, and received emergency treatment at the hospital where she was diagnosed as suffering from a cervical strain, scalp contusion and minimal skin breaks. Six days later she commenced treating with Dr. Schwartz, who based upon symptoms and his physical examination, diagnosed cervical spine strain, thoracic spine strain, lumbosacral strain, closed head injury and temporomandibular joint syndrome. Dr. Schwartz prescribed physical therapy from December 20,1991 to April 17,1992. In an April 6, 1992 letter to plaintiff’s no-fault insurer, Dr. Schwartz stated that plaintiff was disabled from gainful employment and needed help with household chores and that her prognosis was "guarded." On March 19,1992, plaintiff was examined by a physician at the request for her no-fault insurer, who found that plaintiffs extensive and non-specific symptoms could not be verified by any objective finding. This doctor felt that plaintiff was capable of returning to her normal activities, and that there was no indication for further treatment or management. Plaintiff’s no-fault company then discontinued payment of her no-fault benefits.
After commencement of her third-party action for non-economic damages, the defendant moved for summary disposition based on the record and assertion that reasonable minds could not differ in concluding that plaintiffs injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function. The trial court granted this motion and dismissed the action.
The Court of Appeals held that in a case involving a claim of serious impairment under §3135(1), the issue must be submitted to the jury, even if the evidentiary facts are undisputed, as long as reasonable minds could differ as to whether the plaintiff indeed suffered a serious impairment of body function. The statute does not limit recovery of damages to plaintiffs whose injuries can be objectively seen or felt. The threshold requires a plaintiff to show that her non-economic losses arose out of a medically identifiable injury which seriously impaired a body function.
The Court of Appeals herein held that on the record before it, Dr. Schwartz's letter of April 6,1992, indicating his original findings and diagnoses, was sufficient to defeat defendant's motion for summary disposition. The trial court's conclusion that summary disposition should be granted because, within three months, plaintiffs physical exam showed everything to be normal, did not clearly indicate whether this physical exam referred to by the trial court was one performed by Dr. Schwartz or by the no-fault insurance company's independent medical examiner. Due to the lack of development of the record on this point, the court remanded for further proceedings. If the physical exam or exams referred to were performed by Dr. Schwartz, then the order of summary disposition would stand. If the exam or exams were those of the no-fault insurance company's independent medical examiner, then the summary disposition order is vacated and further fact finding would be necessary.
