Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 117426; Unpublished
Judges Danhof, Cynar, and Brennan; 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)]
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)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff sustained neck and back injuries in an automobile accident and was treated by a chiropractor for approximately two and one-half years. The chiropractor diagnosed "severe inter-ligamentous subluxation of the 4th, 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae and the 3rd and 5th lumbar vertebrae." The chiropractor testified that the plaintiff would continue to experience chronic problems such as loss of motion and minor spasms in the afflicted areas. Clinical tests conducted two and one-half years after the accident indicated a reduced range of motion of approximately 25%. The chiropractor advised the plaintiff to avoid strenuous activity, certain sports, and to lift as little as possible.
The court ruled that the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff created a "jury-submissible question of fact" regarding whether plaintiff sustained a serious impairment under the DiFranco v Pickard standard. Therefore, summary disposition was improper.
