Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85057; Published
Judges Sullivan, Allen, and Kallman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 154 Mich App 586; 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 reversed the grant of summary disposition by the trial court on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff was in an automobile accident on August 23,1981. She was treated and released from the hospital emergency room with a cervical collar. She was diagnosed initially as having a sprained cervical spine. She then commenced treatment with her doctor who diagnosed cervical myositis with frozen neck syndrome, temporary radicular pain, sacroiliac synovitis, insomnia and depression. Plaintiff saw her doctor twice a week for two months following the accident, and thereafter once a week. For a period of time, she used a cane for walking, and five years after the accident still wore a back brace almost continuously. In July 1982, plaintiff was hospitalized for 10 days, at which time an EMG was taken and revealed "diffuse irritation of lumbosacral nerve root" Following release from the hospital, plaintiff was confined to her bed and a chair for one month, and thereafter was further confined to her home for an additional three months.
A thermographic examination revealed a result which was consistent with the nerve root irritation diagnosis on EMG.
Plaintiff, prior to her accident, was employed as a cook and housekeeper. Since her accident, she was unable to return to work for approximately three and one-half years. For the first year following her accident, she was ordered by her doctor not to work, and subsequently, upon attempting to return to work, found she was unable to carry out her duties.
Defendant admitted that plaintiff had suffered a lumbosacral nerve root irritation which was objectively manifested in plaintiff’s EMG. Defendant also implicitly admitted that this injury had affected an important body function, i.e., plaintiff’s ability to walk. Defendant denied, however, that the impairment was serious.
The Court of Appeals held that the undisputed facts presented by plaintiff indicate that she has been unable to lead a normal life since her accident. Whether viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, or under the "clearly erroneous" standard, the Court of Appeals felt the trial court's decision should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
