Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82338; Unpublished
Judges Cynar, Burns, and F.X. O'Brien; 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of law, plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome did not meet the no-fault threshold of serious impairment of body function. The Court upheld the trial court's granting of defendant's motion for summary judgment on this issue.
Plaintiff’s injury was sustained in an August 11,1980 accident, which resulted in back, shoulder and right arm pain. Electrodiagnostic examination revealed objective manifestation of plaintiff s carpal tunnel syndrome, which fact was conceded by defendant. Plaintiff was a registered nurse prior to her injury, and subsequent to the accident began experiencing progressively worsening pain and weakness in her right arm with occasional numbness of her entire right hand except for the little finger. The pain, weakness and numbness caused her to lose her grip. She dropped intravenous units while attending patients. She also dropped household items such as cups and jars. Arm pain made cooking and vacuuming more difficult. 1981 plaintiff terminated her employment as a part-time registered nurse based upon her recurring back, neck and right arm pain. In July 1983, plaintiff underwent carpal tunnel surgery which eliminated the numbness of her right hand except for the thumb. However, plaintiff continued to suffer frequent loss of grip, and continued to experience pain during household and recreational activities. Although the Court agreed that movement of the hand is an important body function, and that plaintiff’s injury was objectively manifested, the Court declined to reach the conclusion that the physical limitations imposed by plaintiff’s injury amounted to serious impairment, either before or after surgery. As a matter of law, plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome was found not to meet the no-fault threshold of serious impairment of body function. This case was decided prior to the decision in DiFranco (Item No. 978) on December 23, 1986.
