Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 80687; Published
Judges Wahls, R. B. Burns, and Dodge; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 148 Mich App 827; 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 was injured while a passenger in a vehicle which left the road and struck a tree. She was taken to the hospital complaining of pain in her lower back, shoulder, left knee and ribs. Physical examination revealed multiple contusions and abrasions, and x-rays disclosed a minimal compression fracture of the L-3 vertebra. She was discharged the day after the accident.
Defendants did not dispute the medical evidence or testimony, nor did they dispute plaintiff’s future prognosis, and therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the issue of serious impairment was properly presented for disposition on defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals concluded, based upon the testimony, that plaintiff suffered a minimal compression fracture of the L-3 vertebra, that she was required to wear a lumbosacral corset and take pain medication for a short period of time and that the only permanent effects of the injury were that she could not bend and lift as she once used to and may have to take pain medication from time to time to alleviate discomfort. There was no evidence that plaintiff’s ability to lead a normal life had been significantly affected. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function under the no-fault act, and affirmed dismissal by the circuit court.
