Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 106784; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, MacKenzie, and Griffin; 2-1; 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)]
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 2-1 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiffs claim that he suffered an injury constituting serious impairment of body function.
Following plaintiff’s automobile accident, he was transported to the emergency room by private vehicle where he was diagnosed as suffering from "an acute cervical spine injury, a sprained right wrist, abrasions and contusions." Two hours later he was discharged with the advice to avoid excessive activity, take pain pills as directed, and wear a soft cervical collar for 72-hours until he could be seen by his family doctor. Plaintiff saw his family doctor 12 days later, at which time his condition was diagnosed as whiplash injury which limited plaintiffs range of motion in his neck by 25%." Plaintiff again saw his family doctor two months later, and at that time, the family doctor "determined that plaintiffs injury had completely healed." At that time, plaintiffs only symptom was pain in the left side of his neck. Plaintiff continued to work as a carpenter and as a roofer. Eight and one-half months later, on the advice of his attorney, plaintiff saw another physician that concluded that plaintiff "was suffering from a chronic cervical dorsal strain which was causally related to the 1986 motor vehicle accident."
The court analogized this case to the decision in Johnston v Thorsby (Item No. 1048), wherein the court, in a post-DiFranco case, upheld summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiffs claim of serious impairment of body function. In concluding that Johnston applied to this case, and that no reasonable mind could conclude that plaintiff had a threshold injury, the court observed, "Here plaintiff had only minor complaints following the accident, sought a physician's help only three times (one of which was at the advice of his attorney) and was considered healed by his family physician." On that basis, the court found no serious impairment as a matter of law.
Judge Murphy filed a vigorous dissent. He concluded that the majority had misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in DiFranco v Pickard. He particularly disagreed with the way the majority viewed the testimony of the subsequent physician. Judge Murphy felt that because another doctor had confirmed that plaintiff was still suffering from a chronic injury eight and one-half months after the accident, that a material factual dispute existed that required submission to the trier of fact Therefore, summary disposition was not proper.
