Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87672; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Hood, and Ferguson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This case represents one of the last pre-DiFranco Court of Appeals decisions employing the Cassidy guidelines governing the threshold issue of serious impairment of body function.
In this unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court order granting defendant's summary disposition motion on the serious impairment issue. The Court of Appeals decision in this case was issued on December 18, 1986, five days prior to the release of the Supreme Court decision in DiFranco.
The medical evidence presented through plaintiff’s own physician "as that plaintiff had muscle spasms, decreased reflexes and decreased range-of-motion to the neck, shoulder, lower back and left leg." Plaintiff’s doctor recommended that plaintiff not perform acts of repetitive lifting, bending or prolonged standing. In the 14 months between the accident and his deposition, plaintiff was hospitalized for 28 days and received heat treatments and medication from his doctor at least two or three times per week. He missed seven months of work. When he returned to work, he was given a lighter job. Plaintiff's injuries prevented him from mowing his lawn, doing yard work, or playing basketball.
Following a recitation of the standard Cassidy "litany," the Court of Appeals held that even assuming that plaintiff’s injuries were sufficiently objectively manifested, they were not serious enough. On this basis, the trial court decision granting summary disposition on the threshold issue was affirmed.
