Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 74313; Published
Judges Holbrook, Maher, and Hoefan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 139 Mich App 1; 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:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion is another Cassidy type case regarding summary disposition of the serious impairment issue. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on the threshold question. The plaintiff in this case suffered a fractured left clavicle and a fractured left second rib. She was hospitalized for approximately two days and was fitted with a soft padded splint which limited her ability to move her arm somewhat but was not physically uncomfortable to wear nor did it totally limit arm movement Plaintiff was cautioned not to work for approximately three months and was also instructed not to drive a car during this period for fear mat pain might limit her ability to react to a traffic situation. During the three month period following her injury, plaintiff developed adhesive capsulitis in the shoulder. However, this condition was corrected a few months later with physical therapy.
In affirming summary judgment on the threshold issue, the Court characterized the case "as a close question. The Court stated:
"The facts of this case rail squarely between the two factual scenarios contained in the Cassidy opinion. Plaintiff in this case suffered two broken bones, but one healed without treatment while the other healed over time with a minimal amount of restriction on plaintiff’s use of her arm. Although plaintiff was hospitalized after the accident, she was able to go home within two days and was able to use both arms, restricted only by her tolerance of pain and the soft plastic clavicle strap. Within weeks, plaintiff’s range of motion had increased considerably and she was able to perform normal household and personal tasks. The most significant restriction on her normal activities was Dr. Schwaderer's admonition not to work or drive; however, as stated by Dr. Schwaderer, the restriction on driving was imposed not because plaintiff was physically incapable of driving but rather for fear that pain would impede her ability to react swiftly in an emergency. Finally, we note that although plaintiff asserts that she still suffers headaches and neck aches from the accident, Dr. Schwaderer was unable to say that this pain was related to the accident In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Cassidy, we affirm the trial court"
