Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82072; Published
Judges Beasley, Maher, and Tahvonen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 150 Mich App 546; 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 the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs’ claim of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to the back in a rear end collision. He was treated conservatively with muscle relaxants and chiropractic manipulation. One chiropractor found a misalignment of the spine which he opined could have been caused or aggravated by the accident. Two medical doctors examined plaintiff and neither found any muscle spasm, tenderness or wasting of muscle and clinical tests and x-rays were normal. A third medical doctor found plaintiff had limited flexibility of his lower spine and probably suffered from a pinched nerve which the doctor felt was a temporary condition. In finding that the plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the no-fault threshold, the Court of Appeals focused on the fact that the injury was not sufficiently serious. The court stated, "The plaintiff here complained of pain in his neck and lower back, which made doing household chores such as raking leaves difficult He was able to walk, drive a car, visit friends, and take care of himself while his wife was at work. Drs. Heller, Doshi and Westerbeke found the plaintiff was able to work. Dr. Huff testified that plaintiff’s injuries were not impairing his ability to function in any significant manner. Plaintiff’s injuries consisted of soreness, stiffness, tenderness in the muscles and pain in his back and leg. Flexibility in the spine area was only SO percent at one time, however, plaintiff was able to perform leg raising and other flexibility tests. We have previously held that muscle spasms, tenderness and limited flexibility do not rise to the level of a serious impairment of body function."
It should also be noted that plaintiff had two thermographic evaluations. The first revealed some type of dermatomal problem in the plaintiff’s spine. The second found no dermatomal problem but did disclose some muscle irritation.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court's decision that plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages for loss of earning capacity, which position has subsequently been adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Argenta v Shahan (Item No. 870). In addition, the court affirmed the trial court's holding that plaintiff need not prove serious impairment of body function in order to recover excess work loss beyond the third anniversary date of the accident.
