Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87947; Published
Judges Holbrook, Shepherd, and Dodge; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 155 Mich App 517; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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 trial court's granting of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the threshold issue.
Plaintiff in this case was involved in a head-on collision while a-passenger in a motor vehicle. He sustained compression fractures of the first and second lumbar vertebrae, an injury to his big toe and bruises and contusions. The compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebrae resulted in a 10% to 15% loss in vertebrael height. Plaintiff was hospitalized for five days, wore a back brace for three months and was unable to return to work for three months. He also received three injections for pain in his lower back. At the present time, plaintiff complains that his injuries have curtailed his participation in sports, including tennis, racquetball and golf. In addition, he experiences extreme discomfort when attempting activities such as lifting his daughter, lifting groceries, walking long distances, and standing or lying down for long periods of time.
Referring to the previous decision in Harris v Lemisex (Item No. 913), the Court of Appeals held that the movement of one's back is an important body function. In addition, the compression fractures were an objective manifestation of back injury. The only other question was whether or not the impairment of body function in this case was sufficiently serious to impact upon plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life. In that regard, the Court of Appeals felt it was and that the trial court had accordingly committed reversible error.
