Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 91461; Unpublished
Judges Allen, Cynar, and Livo; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court.of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of one plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the second plaintiff’s threshold claim. Plaintiff Juanita Fraki sustained a comminuted fracture of her left upper arm (the humerus bone). This injury required casting for approximately six weeks and an arm sling for an additional seven weeks. Plaintiff was also required to undergo physical therapy and had marked limitation of arm motion for the better part of a year. The Court of Appeals ruled that the "proper use of the arm and shoulder" are an important body function which, in this case, was objectively manifested. Even though plaintiff’s injury was "temporary" in terms of her eventual recovery, the Court held that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the plaintiff’s impairment of body function was sufficiently serious so as to constitute a serious impairment of body function. Therefore, summary judgment on this issue was improper.
Plaintiff Kenneth Fraki asserted that three of his injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function. The trial court ruled they did not and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Kenneth Fraki's injuries consisted of chondromalacia of the patella (a roughening of the underside of the knee cap), injury to the joint compartment of his left wrist with some tendon damage and a narrowing of the joint space and a soft tissue injury to both, shoulders. The court ruled that chondromalacia of the patella was an objectively manifested injury that did indeed involve impairment of an important body function. The court held that "proper knee movement is essential to walking, running and as variety of other movements related to locomotion." However, this injury did not significantly impair plaintiff’s ability to lead a normal life in that he was able to work an average of 48 hours per week, had only minimal stiffness in the knee upon arising in the morning, and could do most of his other normal daily activities. Plaintiff testified that the only activities he felt were limited were mowing the lawn, kneeling and climbing stairs, all of which he did anyway. Therefore, plaintiff’s knee injury was not sufficiently serious as to constitute a threshold injury. The court reached the same conclusion with regard to plaintiff’s wrist injury. The court found that the function of the wrist is an important body function that was, in this case, subjectively manifested by changes on x-ray. However, this injury was not sufficiently serious as to constitute a threshold injury in that plaintiff was able to engage in all activities incidental to a normal life. Plaintiff’s major complaints were that he had difficulty in lifting heavy objects and shoveling snow, but the court felt these were not so significant as to cross the threshold. Finally, plaintiff’s soft tissue shoulder injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function in that they were not objectively manifested. The court did rule that the function of the shoulder was an important body function. However, there was insufficient evidence of objective manifestation. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered from limited range of motion in his shoulder. However, the court discounted this finding on the basis that there was no evidence as to whether the range of motion test was "passive or active." The court held that "limited rotation is deemed objective manifestation only if it is verified by a passive range of motion test."
Finally, in expressing the standard of review on appeal of a trial court's decision on the threshold issue, the court stated that the evidence must be viewed "in a light most favorable to the injured plaintiff and the appellate court must determine '(1) whether there is a factual dispute as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, and if not, (2) whether reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether a serious impairment of body function exists.'"
