Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 73435; Published
Judges Beasley, Allen, and Breighner; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 135 Mich App 742; 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)]
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 Allen, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s tort claim that she sustained a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff was injured in two separate car accidents occurring over two years apart. Plaintiff settled her tort claim arising out of the first accident and pursued a tort action for injuries allegedly sustained in the second accident. It was with respect to the second accident that the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.
Plaintiff’s injuries were essentially soft tissue in nature. She was never hospitalized on an in-patient basis nor did she undergo surgery. Plaintiff’s two treating physicians testified that there was no objective evidence of injury which they could detect after either accident. In addition, both treating physicians testified that they could not discern any appreciable difference in plaintiff’s condition or complaints after the second accident as compared to after the first. Neither doctor could find any physiologic abnormality.
The file also contained a deposition of another doctor who examined plaintiff on one occasion. He diagnosed plaintiff as having a loss of normal cervical lordosis but could not associate that with the automobile accident In addition, this examining physician testified that an x-ray may have disclosed a prior avulsion fracture of the spinous process but he thought this condition was remote in origin. The examining physician also stated that any problems plaintiff had with weakness in her arm and hand predated either auto accident
In affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant, the Court of Appeals reviewed the Supreme Court's opinion in Cassidy v McGovern (item number 608) and its prior holdings in the cases of McDonald v Oberlin (item number 660), Williams v Payne (item number 708) and Braden v Lee (item number 725). The court relied heavily on the testimony of plaintiff s two treating physicians and their conclusions that they could find no objective evidence consistent with plaintiff’s complaints of pain. In addition, the court noted that the examining physician's finding of a loss of cervical lordosis was not helpful because there was no evidence with-respect to the cause of the lordosis. The court further found that plaintiff had not experienced a significant interference with her normal lifestyle. As a result, plaintiff did not sustain a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law.
