Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76509; Published
Judges Holbrook, MacKenzie, and Lamb; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 141 Mich App 574; 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, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries. There was no factual dispute as to the extent of those injuries. The court affirmed the trial court on the basis that plaintiff’s injuries "were not subject to medical measurement and thus are not objectively manifested in a scientific or medical context" The court went on to say that even though plaintiff’s arthritic condition may have been accelerated by the accident, the threshold has still not been satisfied in light of the fact that "plaintiff here is able to work and although he has difficulty with some tasks, he is able to live a normal life and can garden, golf, etc. There is no significant interference with his normal lifestyle, nor is he incapacitated." The court did agree, however, with plaintiff’s contention that the Cassidy opinion does not stand for the proposition that soft tissue injuries never qualify for serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Thus, plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the threshold was without merit.
