Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 72933; Published
Judges Brennan, Allen, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 138 Mich App 788; 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 also a Cassidy summary disposition of the serious impairment question. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s allegation that her lower back and neck condition constituted serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff’s injuries were "soft tissue" in nature. She was hospitalized for a nine day period. Her treating physician noted muscle spasms, tenderness in the lumbar area and limited flexion. Upon discharge, plaintiff wore a brace for a short period of time and received medication. She missed three and one-half weeks of work but resumed her full-time employment. She treated with her physician on eleven different occasions over a one and one-half year period. She continued with generalized complaints of severe pain and physical activity limitation which allegedly affected her lifestyle.
In affirming summary judgment, the Court stated, "the medical findings of muscle spasm, tenderness and limited flexion do not rise to the level of objective manifestations of injuries which generally support a finding of 'serious impairment of body function'.'' The Court went on to say that even if these findings did constitute objective manifestation, plaintiff’s mode of living or lifestyle was not significantly altered.
[Author's Comment: In summarizing the Cassidy holding, this panel seems to suggest that there are three (3) requirements-of threshold injury: (1) an impairment of an important body function, (2) an effect on the person's ability to lead a normal life and (3) an objectively manifested injury. This threefold conceptualization of threshold requirements is somewhat different than the dicotomy presented in the cases of Williams v Payne (item number 708) and Braden v Lee (item number 725) regarding the requirement of "objectively manifested injury." Those two cases speak of "lifestyle impairment" as a possible way to demonstrate objectively manifested injury. The Flemings case seems to suggest that it is a separate and independent requirement]
