Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 84306; Published
Judges Kelly, Shepherd, and Knoblock; Unanimous by Judge Knoblock
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 156 Mich App 474; 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 Opinion by Judge Knoblock, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. The court held that there was a factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries which made summary disposition inappropriate. The plaintiff in this case had suffered from numerous back ailments stemming from several accidents prior to the automobile accident which was the basis of her suit. Specifically, the facts revealed that plaintiff had been involved in four separate accidents or falls wherein she complained of lower back pain. A myelogram taken during this time revealed pressure at L-4 and L-5. At the time of the subject auto accident, plaintiff was on disability from work as a result of her low back problem, but was preparing to return to work. After the accident in question, plaintiff had an aggravation of low back pain. Her treating physician detected muscle spasms (which had not been detected prior to the accident), a loss of the normal lordotic spinal curvature which was present prior to the auto accident, and a disc protrusion or herniated disc at L-3, L-4 detected by subsequent CAT scan.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff’s low back injury involved an important body function. The court also noted that several of plaintiff s doctors testified that she had limited range of low back movement and was restricted in the amount of weight she could lift. Plaintiff also had difficulty standing or sitting for long periods of time. The court held that plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested by virtue of the fact that CAT scan revealed disc protrusion, x-ray revealed loss of normal lordotic curvature and the doctor's examination revealed evidence of muscle spasm detectable by palpation. All of these things constituted objective manifestation. The court concluded, "in our opinion, the inability of this plaintiff to engage in employment that requires lifting, bending, twisting, prolonged standing, or prolonged sitting is tantamount to an inability to engage in any employment. We find that there is a factual dispute regarding plaintiff’s physical restrictions-limiting her ability to work which is material to the determination of whether she has suffered a serious impairment of a body function."
