Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87247; Unpublished
Judges Walsh, Kelley, and Simon; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function. In this pre-DiFranco decision, the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff’s back injuries did not constitute a serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff suffered a back injury resulting in low back pain as a result of the accident. We spent two weeks following the accident lying down, and thereafter his doctor recommended various exercises and back support Plaintiff missed three weeks of work as a truck driver following the accident, and thereafter found that he was working only three or four days per week instead of his normal five or six days. Plaintiff filed an affidavit indicating that his doctor had mentioned the prospect of surgery. Plaintiff, on his doctor's advice, wore a molded back support at all times. His back hurts every day, and he avoids activity involving bending, lifting and twisting because of resultant severe pain. He continued to miss work intermittently, and his doctor had suggested a change in careers due to his back problems. Based upon the above, the Court of Appeals concluded that the record did not disclose a "general inability on plaintiff’s part to live what objectively can be determined to be a normal life."
