United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 92-CV-75201-DT;
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen; Unpublished
Official Federal Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (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:
In this 1993 Opinion by Judge Gerald Rosen, the court held that plaintiff had failed to sufficiently demonstrate that any of his injuries affected his body functions to such an extent that they could be deemed serious impairments under the provisions of §3135(1) of the no-fault act, and therefore, summary judgment should be granted on the issue of serious impairment.
In this opinion, Judge Rosen reviewed all of plaintiff’s claims of injuries in this case, and determined that each of them failed to create an issue for the trier of fact regarding whether these issues rose to the level of a serious impairment of body function.
In his Opinion, Judge Rosen extensively reviewed the several injuries claimed, including a right shoulder injury with a torn rotator cuff, a back injury involving a compression fracture of the T-12 vertebrae, a left shoulder injury resulting in tendinitis, together with general complaints of pain, sprain and strain of the left arm, neck, left ankle, left leg and right leg. With regard to the right shoulder injury, the court found that this had been improved through injections, and other than a general complaint of pain, plaintiff had failed to present any evidence demonstrating the extent of the right shoulder impairment. Examination by one of the physicians determined that the right shoulder had unrestricted full motion. Further, plaintiff’s activities following the accident had not been seriously affected by his right shoulder injury.
With regard to his back injury, the court determined that one of plaintiff’s own treating physicians found that he had 90% to 95% range of motion in his low back, a range not indicative of serious impairment. Plaintiff also failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the length of time of his impairment, and other than anti-inflammatory medication, plaintiff’s only treatment was therapy.
With regard to his left shoulder, the court found that one of plaintiff’s own treating physicians had determined that he had 98% range of motion of his left shoulder, therefore indicating that it was not a serious impairment.
With regard to plaintiff’s other more generalized complaints, the court determined that they too failed to meet the requirement of serious impairment of body function.
For all of the reasons outlined above, the court determined that reasonable minds could not differ on the issue of serious impairment of body function, and therefore, summary judgment should be granted in favor of the defendant
