Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87632; Unpublished
Judges Beasley, Gillis, and Dodge; 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff in this case sustained soft tissue injuries to her right arm and shoulder. Her doctor diagnosed her injury as "diffuse muscle tightness in the right shoulders area." Another doctor diagnosed it as "myofascial syndrome." All x-rays were negative. Plaintiff could perform most tasks of employment, was unaffected in her performance in school, and was essentially able to lead a normal life. The court held that an injury to the back and to the arm do involve important body functions. With regard to an arm injury, the court noted, "the ability to use an arm, especially the right arm in a plaintiff who is right handed, may similarly and with little difficulty be viewed as an important body function because of the great many vital purposes for which the arm is used." The court also found that where an injury involves a palpable muscle spasm that the physician can feel, the objective manifestation requirement is satisfied. In this regard the court noted, "when the doctor can determine the extent of the injury using his own five senses and without plaintiff telling him that it hurts, this is an objective manifestation." However, plaintiff lost her claim for the reason that her injury was not sufficiently serious. Specifically, there was no impairment of her ability to lead a "normal life." Therefore, the impairment of body function was not sufficiently serious. In commenting on the seriousness requirement, the court stated, "when we think of a serious impairment of an important body function such as the use of an arm, we imagine the inability to write, or to pick up a child, or cook to feed one's self. When we think of a serious impairment of an important body function such as the use of the back, we imagine the inability to carry packages, or to bend to pick up something which has fallen. We imagine, in other words, impairments of the basic uses of these body functions which make them important to us."
