Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 101388; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Murphy, and R.B. Bums; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; 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 unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on the threshold issue.
Plaintiff claimed a serious impairment of body function after a rear end accident. Among the impairments claimed were chest pain relating to a pre-existing condition or to musculoskeletal injury, as well as injury to her circulatory system.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant, finding that plaintiff had not shown a medically identified physical basis for her chest pain. Although the trial court stated that it was analyzing the case under the DiFranco decision, the Court of Appeals held that reliance upon Cassidy was obvious in the trial court's reference to "subjective complaints of pain." The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court appeared to have ignored plaintiff’s allegations of the origin pain as being musculoskeletal, and the Court held that plaintiff's subjective complaints are not to be automatically disregarded or dismissed as a matter of law by the court.
The Court of Appeals further held that the jury should have the opportunity to weigh the testimony of the experts and medical evidence presented by both sides in determining whether the plaintiff's injury is a serious impairment of a body function. The Court emphasized that no longer must a plaintiff show "objectively manifested injuries" to avoid summary disposition.
