Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 88740; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, Gillis, and MacKenzie; 2-1; 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In this unpublished 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed an entry of summary judgment in favor. of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The majority in this pre-DiFranco case held that there was no factual dispute as to the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries, and that those injuries did not rise to the level of a serious impairment. Following the accident, plaintiff was in traction for a week with a possible neck fracture. Subsequently, it was discovered that she had sustained no fracture and she was released from the hospital. Plaintiff missed two (2) months of work, and continues to have problems if she sits or drives for long periods of time. She also had a prior existing genetic psychological condition known as cyclothymic disorder, a mild form of manic depressive illness. Symptoms of this condition include intensified pain perceptions, migraine headaches and premenstrual syndrome; all of which can be exacerbated by a triggering factor such as an accident. Because of her pain, plaintiff was prescribed Demerol which she overused, and to which she became addicted. Thereafter, she became extremely upset and took an overdose of another drug in an apparent suicide attempt. Following the overdose, plaintiff was hospitalized for 12 days. Within eight days of her hospitalization, she was cured of her Demerol dependency. The majority held that "even if we concluded that Mrs. Reynolds' addiction was serious, it was not objectively manifested." Since there was no physical basis for the pain that she experienced, it was not objectively manifested. The Court also found that the "aggravation" of the plaintiff’s existing cyclothymic disorder was not objectively manifested.
In his dissent, Judge Shepherd stated that there was a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff attempted suicide, and whether this attempt was in some way related to the accident. He felt that if the accident could be causally related to the suicide attempt, plaintiff could recover. Shepherd would hold that the requirement of "objectively manifested injuries” should not apply in a case such as this where the injuries are primarily psychological in nature. Shepherd would hold that an attempt to take one's life is a substantial interference with the ability to lead a normal life.
[Author's Comment: For a similar case involving a claim of post-traumatic neurosis, see Garris v Vanderlaan (Item No. 879).]
