Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 125832; Unpublished
Judges Gillis, Weaver, 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)]
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:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’’s tort claim that she had sustained serious impairment of body function, thus entitling her to non-economic loss recovery. In holding that reasonable minds could not differ regarding whether plaintiff had sustained a serious impairment of body function, the court described plaintiffs injuries and the nature of the medical evidence in the following manner:
"In moving for summary disposition, defendant asserted that there was no objective medical evidence indicating that plaintiff had suffered a clinically demonstrable injury other than pain from sprain, that defendant testified at deposition that she returned to work three weeks after the accident, was thereafter able to obtain medical assistant certification and obtain full time employment as a medical assistant. Furthermore, plaintiff indicated on the career school application, dated May 17,1988, that she was not suffering any disability or injury and the doctor who examined her in connection with the school admission found no problems that would interfere with schooling or working in health care.
Plaintiff’s response asserted that she continued to suffer muscle spasms and headaches and indicated that these symptoms could be satisfactorily treated with medication. In addition, plaintiff admitted that she was able to do everything she could do prior to the accident. Plaintiff’s response did not include any documentary evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial, as required by MCR 2.116(G)(4). Furthermore, plaintiff did not assert in the response or argue at the hearing that summary disposition was premature because discovery had not been completed nor did she assert that she intended to depose the treating physician."
