Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 80673; Published
Judges Beasley, Gillis, and Kelley; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 147 Mich App 746; 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)]
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 upper back and neck, resulting in limitation in her range of cervical movement, a slight decrease in range of motion of both shoulders, muscle spasms and tenderness in her trapezi and dorsal paravertebral muscles, and a temporary auditory deficiency in her right ear.
The Court of Appeals noted that, although the limitation in plaintiff’s range of cervical movement was initially 30 percent to 44) percent, by 11 months post-accident the range of motion had improved and the limitation reduced to between five percent to ten percent. Assuming, without deciding, that the range of motion tests are an objective manifestation of plaintiff s injury, the Court of Appeals stated that it was not persuaded that a ten percent limitation in range of neck motion constitutes serious impairment of a body function. Noting that the plaintiff also suffered from numbness in her hands and arms when raised above the shoulder level (a bilaterally positive Adsons sign), the court concluded that it was not convinced that plaintiff’s impairment satisfied the threshold.
