United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr.;_________
Official Federal Reporter Citation: _____; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation 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)]
Liability for Excess Economic Loss Caused by Insured Tortfeasors [§3135(3)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion following a bench trial, Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. made the following rulings regarding plaintiff’s residual bodily injury tort claim:
1. First, Judge Guy ruled that plaintiff’s soft tissue back injury did not constitute a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Judge Guy characterized plaintiff’s injury as follows: "Although the initial diagnosis is couched in the jargon of the [chiropractic] profession, when translated, the plaintiff was essentially diagnosed as having soft tissue injury in the cervical and lumbar regions, with evidence of muscle spasms. This court concludes that when one has suffered a back sprain, the only treatment administered being limited to manipulation and heat treatments by a chiropractor, this simply does not result in the type of serious impairment of body function contemplated by the Legislature of the State of Michigan."
Judge Guy relied heavily on the medical testimony of defendant's medical doctor, who found no objective evidence of injury and no clinical evidence to support any of plaintiff’s complaints.
2. Judge Guy refused to permit plaintiff to introduce testimony regarding thermographic examination. The court relied upon a previous Sixth Circuit decision in United States v Brown, 557 F2d 541 (CA 6 1977), wherein the court concluded that thermography, as a diagnostic tool for back injuries, has not received that degree of acceptance necessary within the scientific community to be admissible into evidence.
3. Judge Guy did enter judgment for plaintiff on his claim of excess work loss beyond the three-year period which does not require proof of serious impairment of body function. This aspect of plaintiff’s claim was complicated by the fact that plaintiff had been involved in three accidents within a short period of time, all of which aggravated plaintiff’s back injuries. Judge Guy ruled that under Michigan law, where a court or jury is unable to separate damages caused by defendant's conduct from those which were preexisting, then the entire amount of plaintiff s damages must be assessed against the defendant. In order to determine the actual amount of plaintiff s future work loss, Judge Guy considered the plaintiff’s work history, plaintiff’s earnings in past years, plaintiff’s age and general health and attempted to determine for how long plaintiff would work into the future. Judge Guy found that plaintiff would have worked until his seventieth birthday and awarded work loss damages until that date, reduced by plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses and reduced to present day value.
