Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78710; Published
Judges Gribbs, T. M. Burns, and Warshawsky; 2-1; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 152 Mich App 149; 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 2-1 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s threshold claim of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff essentially sustained soft tissue injuries in a rear end collision while a passenger of a bus. She was treated 29 times by a chiropractor over a one-year period who diagnosed that plaintiff suffered from a "sprain-strain injury accompanied by ligamentous instability, myofastitis, and localized evidence of nerve irritation." The chiropractor's physical examination revealed "palpable cervical, thoracic and lumbar muscle spasms, and palpable edema in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions." The chiropractor also concluded that plaintiff’s symptoms would "be recurrent and that plaintiff could anticipate exacerbations and remissions of pain and stiffness in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spinal area." Plaintiff was also examined by an orthopedic surgeon whose examination revealed "subacute contracture of the trapezius musculature bilaterally, trunk flexion to 45 degrees with pain beyond that point, and marked tension through the musculature of the lumbar spine bilaterally." The orthopedic surgeon also stated that plaintiff would benefit from a rather intensive and long-term physical therapy and rehabilitation program and would require work restrictions as to heavy lifting in the future. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was unemployed and continued to be unemployed.
In reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the majority found that plaintiff’s ability to move her back was an important body function. Furthermore, the majority found that plaintiff’s injuries "have been objectively manifested by the medical examinations revealing contracture or spasm of her musculature." The court viewed the determinative question as being whether the impairment of plaintiff s body function was serious enough to impact on her general ability to live a normal life. In ruling that plaintiff had presented a "marginal" threshold showing that was "sufficient to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment," the court articulated several factors it considered regarding the interference with normal lifestyle requirement. The court stated, "Factors to be considered include the extent of the injury, treatment required, duration of disability, extent of residual impairment, and prognosis for eventual recovery, which impact on her ability to live a normal life." The court noted that plaintiff presented medical opinions that indicated she would be involved in long-term rehabilitation and that she was suffering from recurrent problems.
Judge Warshawsky dissented. He did not believe plaintiff’s injury was "serious enough to impact on her general ability to lead a normal life."
