United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division; Docket No. 87-CV-74128-DT;
Judge Paul V. Gadola; Unpubished
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)]
Important Body Function 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:
In this action brought by plaintiff pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Judge Gadola found plaintiff had sustained a serious impairment of body function under the DiFranco standard, and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $25,000.
Plaintiff, a 68-year old man, suffered injuries in a November 14,1985 accident, while he was already disabled as a consequence of previous injuries sustained in an automobile accident in 1981. In fact, as noted by the court, plaintiff had been involved in a remarkable series of four automobile accidents, commencing in 1980, and each leading to litigation. Plaintiff was diagnosed by a chiropractor as suffering from soft tissue injuries in the back, with evidence of muscle spasms and related symptoms. Although an earlier opinion by Judge Guy involving the 1981 accident had found that plaintiff’s injuries (which are very similar to his current injuries) were not a serious impairment of body function, Judge Gadola determined that under the DiFranco standard, plaintiff had satisfied the court that he did suffer aggravation of a pre-existing condition of degenerative arthritis that seriously impaired his body functions of movement of his back and neck. Quoting from Belue v Uniroyal, Inc, 114 Mich App 589 (1982), the court found that the fact that one cannot completely differentiate between what damage was done by which accident is not fatal to plaintiffs claim, since Michigan law dictates that where the court or jury is unable to separate damages caused by a defendant's conduct from those which were pre-existing, then the entire amount of plaintiffs damages must be assessed against the defendant. The court's judgment included a recovery for allowable expenses and for non-economic losses for pain and suffering.
