Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 73192; Published
Judges Gillis, Kelly, and Mullen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 140 Mich App 156; 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 unanimous per curiam Opinion dealing with "threshold injury," the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's grant of a JNOV in favor of defendant after a jury awarded plaintiff $10,000 in damages.
Plaintiff’s injuries consisted of a soreness in his back following a rear-end collision. Plaintiff only lost three days of work because of the injury and missed a total of 16 hours for chiropractic treatments over a two and a half year period. In addition, plaintiff had been provided with a helper at work for heavy lifting but had not experienced any reduction in his wages.
The court interpreted Cassidy as setting out three criteria for a threshold injury: (1) impairment of an important body function; (2) an impairment which is serious; and (3) objectively manifested injuries. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the first criteria, stating that the "body function impaired is the use of the back in lifting." However, plaintiff failed to satisfy the second requirement that the injury was sufficiently serious. The court stated that "three days and 16 hours of missed work in two and a half years is quite an impressive attendance record." Furthermore, plaintiff’s complaints that he could no longer ski, snowmobile and hunt as he could before the injury "cannot be considered to be on par with death or serious permanent disfigurement as required in Cassidy." Because the plaintiff’s injuries did not satisfy the second requirement, the court expressed no opinion as to whether plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested.
