Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 91725; Unpublished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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's grant of summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of a body function. In this pre-DiFranco decision, the Court ruled that plaintiff’s injury was neither serious nor objectively manifested. The Court of Appeals characterized plaintiff’s injury as "a mild soft tissue injury of the neck" which prevents any quick movements of the head. Although the ability to freely and quickly move the head was found to be an important body function, the Court held that plaintiff’s injury had not seriously interfered with a normal lifestyle in that plaintiff was able to move her neck up and down and from side to side, "as long as she does not do so quickly." She is able to work as a real estate agent, and can assist in the house cleaning and yard work. Her testimony that she could no longer attend her exercise class, or that she could no longer ride comfortably for long periods in the car, or move her head quickly while driving, does not amount to a serious impairment of a body function.
