Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 86913; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Hood, and Ferguson; 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's order vacating an earlier judgment for defendant on the threshold injury and ruled that plaintiff’s injury did not constitute a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Essentially, plaintiff sustained a soft tissue neck injury. She was not hospitalized on an overnight basis and only missed approximately two weeks of work. She required help with household work for two to three weeks following the accident, but since that time has been able to do housework herself with occasional help from her husband. Plaintiff drives, swims frequently in the summer, skis and frequently goes bicycle riding during the summer. Plaintiff’s neurologist diagnosed that plaintiff had sustained "damage to the fifth cervical nerve root on the right side witnessed by the diminution of pinprick over the right shoulder in the distribution of the fifth cervical nerve and the decreased biceps reflex on the right side." The neurologist testified that plaintiff’s injury would not interfere with her athletic activities but may cause difficulty with performance of housework and her employment duties as a waitress.
The Court of Appeals agreed that the use of plaintiff s arm was an important body function. In addition, the court agreed that the neurologist's testimony was sufficient to establish an objectively manifested impairment. However, the plaintiff’s claim failed for the reason that her impairment was not sufficiently serious. The court held that where the consequences of plaintiff s injury are essentially “that she cannot bend and lift as she once did and she may have to take pain medication from time to time, there is no evidence that her ability to lead a normal life has been significantly affected."
