Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 86283; Published
Judges Weaver, Holbrook, and Gillespie; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 162 Mich App 308; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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 case, the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant on the serious impairment of body function issue.
Plaintiff, when he discovered his car would not start, asked defendant to start the engine while he stood in front of the vehicle. Due to defendant's inexperience, the vehicle lurched forward and knocked plaintiff over a nearby wall, causing pain and injury to his shoulder and neck.
A few days following his injury, plaintiff was examined by a neurosurgeon who ordered a myelogram. Following the myelogram, plaintiff developed problems related to the dye which was left in his spinal area due to complications during surgery. Although plaintiff had walked into the hospital with minor discomfort, he left in a wheelchair, unable to walk, and remained in this condition for approximately six months. Subsequent examinations revealed arachnoiditis (an inflammation of the spinal canal lining which can result in severe pain) as well as deterioration of the lower back disc. One of plaintiff’s treating physicians wrote a letter indicating that as of March, 1986, plaintiff was permanently disabled from any occupation requiring bending, stooping or heavy lifting.
In spite of the above evidence, the jury returned a judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant. Utilizing the DiFranco guidelines, the Court of Appeals held that reasonable minds could differ as to the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries and the seriousness of his impairments. As a consequence, the Court of Appeals felt constrained to affirm the jury verdict.
