Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77389; Published
Judges Bronson, Oillis, and Dodge; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 146 Mich App 150; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (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:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant on the threshold issue of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to her lower back which disabled her for approximately 90 days. However, plaintiff alleged that as a result of her injuries, she is unable to "take long walks, carry groceries, bowl or play baseball." Plaintiff treated with two physicians over a six-month period. All x-ray examinations and EMG studies were negative. Her doctors diagnosed plaintiff’s injuries as "strain, cervical and lumbo-sacral with myositis." One doctor also diagnosed a reduction in range of motion in the cervical and lumbosacral spine. The court held that plaintiff’s injuries were not sufficiently serious to meet the threshold requirement In addition, the court stated that while plaintiff’s injuries may result in "difficulties in her daily life, we do not find that such difficulties interfere in any significant manner with plaintiff’s normal lifestyle." The court also ruled that the medical findings of limited range of motion, tenderness and muscle spasms "do not rise to the level of objective manifestations of injuries which generally support a finding of serious impairment of body function."
