Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87657; Unpublished
Judges Walsh, Kelly, and Simon; Unanimous
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 (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
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In this unpublished post-DiFranco v Pickard decision (Item No. 978), the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition of the threshold issue in favor of defendant. The Court noted that DiFranco does not always make summary disposition inappropriate. In this particular case, no reasonable mind could differ that plaintiff’s injury did not constitute serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff suffered low back pain which was diagnosed as lumbosacral strain. She saw a doctor shortly after the accident who prescribed Tylenol. She men waited two years before seeing any other doctor regarding her alleged accident-related shoulder injury. When she did commence treatment for the shoulder injury, her doctor said that she may have had a torn rotator cuff, but if she did, "it had long since healed." Plaintiff underwent some physical therapy, after which her doctor indicated her shoulder had healed. The Court held, "we find that under DiFranco, this issue need not have been submitted to the jury. Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendant's motion for summary disposition."
