Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85705; Published
Judges Allen, MacKenzie, and Swallow; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 153 Mich App 622; 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 decision of the trial court granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the no-fault threshold claim of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff suffered soft tissue neck injuries on August 24,1981, and as a consequence, was treated and released from the hospital emergency room. Thereafter, she continued to treat with her doctor for facial pain, headaches and neck pain. She was hospitalized from September 25, 1981 until October 3, 1981 for continuing headaches and muscle spasms. Her doctor continued to treat her thereafter on a regular basis during 1982 and 1983, and diagnosed her condition as "post-traumatic myofacial pain." Prior to the accident, plaintiff worked at General Motors, building Oldsmobile front-end pieces. However, because of her neck injury, she was able to work only one day before being assigned to a less strenuous job. Subsequently, she terminated her employment on October 16,1983. Prior to her actually terminating her employment in October, 1983, plaintiff had planned to leave her job at General Motors as of January 1, 1984, in order to become a full-time homemaker. Plaintiff testified that prior to the accident she ran two. miles a day, but after the accident found that the jarring from the running aggravated her injuries. She also testified that she could do the housekeeping chores that she did prior to the accident, except vacuuming.
In reviewing the decision of the trial court granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant, the Court of Appeals opted for the standard by which the facts are viewed "in a light most favorable to plaintiff." The Court noted that the "clearly erroneous standard" does not apply to questions of law.
The Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff’s injury was objectively manifested, in that, plaintiff’s physician had testified that she had "palpable paracervical muscle spasms on the right." However, plaintiff failed to establish the seriousness requirement of a serious impairment of body function. According to the Court of Appeals, the only activities in which plaintiff is no longer able to regularly engage are running, vacuuming, and driving an automobile. However, the limitations on driving an automobile could not definitely be ascribed to her injuries, in that plaintiff testified that she also was "afraid to drive."
The Court concluded that plaintiff’s termination of her employment was voluntary, rather than medically mandated, and therefore, was unable to conclude that her injuries were so serious as to constitute a serious impairment of body function. The trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition was affirmed.
