Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 313039; Unpublished
Judges Boonstra, Cavanagh, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010-Present) [§3135(5)**]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s claims for noneconomic losses, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant on serious impairment of body function because “plaintiff presented no evidence in support of her claim that her alleged hand tremors arose as a consequence of [her] collision.”
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a minor accident that occurred while she and defendant “were waiting in line to purchase gas.” The primary injury that the plaintiff alleged arose from the collision consisted of “uncontrolled hand tremors,” which the Court further described as “involuntary movements of her right hand” and “tremors.” At the time of the accident, the plaintiff suffered from numerous pre-existing medical conditions, including “knee and low back problems” for which she was receiving Social Security Disability benefits. The Court further noted that the plaintiff’s “physical abilities were severely limited as a consequence of her numerous medical problems.” The Plaintiff was examined by two neurologists who opined that plaintiff’s injuries were not the result of a neurological injury attributable to her accident, and plaintiff’s doctors were unable to determine the origin of her tremors.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition for defendant on serious impairment of body function. In so holding, the Court reasoned:
The primary injury that plaintiff claims arose from the collision is “uncontrolled hand tremors.” However, in support of their argument that plaintiff did not sustain a serious impairment of body function from the collision, defendants provided written evaluations from two neurologists which concluded that plaintiff’s alleged hand tremors were clearly “nonphysiologic” and did not arise from a neurological disorder that could be attributed to the collision. . . . Plaintiff presented no evidence in support of her claim that her alleged hand tremors arose as a consequence of the collision. The medical records indicated that plaintiff’s physicians were unable to determine the origin of the tremor. At the hearing on defendants motion, plaintiff’s counsel admitted that no testing had identified the cause of the tremor or determined whether it was voluntary or involuntary. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact upon which reasonable minds could differ regarding the issue whether she suffered a serious impairment of body function from the collision. Thus, the trial court properly determined as a matter of law that plaintiff did not suffer a serious impairment of body function entitling her to relief.
The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
