Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76278; Unpublished
Judges T. M. Burns, Shepherd, and Warshawsky; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; 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 reversed summary judgment in favor of defendant regarding plaintiff’s claim that her soft tissue injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function. The court ruled that there was a material issue of fact that entitled the plaintiff to a jury determination of the threshold issue. The court's reasoning with respect to this issue and the factors it considered relevant were set forth as follows:
"[Plaintiff] testified in her deposition that the pain from her injury continued to prevent her return to work. She could not take care of her family or perform housework. She is immobilized much of the time. Dr. Podolsky’s report indicates x-rays were negative. Nevertheless, he found some objective verification of plaintiff s complaints. That the defense physicians reached an opposite conclusion cannot sway us, for this Court 'must avoid making findings of fact under the guise of determining that no issues of material fact exist.' Dr. Podolsky characterized plaintiff’s injuries as muscular inflammation and 'post-concussion syndrome,’ and opined that they were due to the automobile accident. He found plaintiff’s trunk movement restricted by some 25 to 30 percent. As this Court noted in Argenta v Shahan, It is obvious that the plaintiff’s ability to move her back is an important body function.' Moreover, a restriction of that ability is 'an objective manifestation of the injury.'
"In addition, Dr. Podolsky instructed plaintiff to refrain from any occupational or other activity which would adversely affect her condition. He stated that this was 'one of those unfortunate cases' in which the injury is chronic in nature, and might not respond well to treatment. We conclude that this claim presents a question for a jury. The statute does not dictate denial of tort recovery merely because the impairment is not total or complete. Given the evidence of the injury's permanence and seriousness, a jury might properly conclude that it reaches the threshold."
The court did, however, affirm summary judgment in favor of defendant with respect to the serious impairment claims of plaintiff s three young children. In each of those cases, the injuries were very minor with the child achieving a full and complete recovery with no residual consequences within four and a half months after the accident The children's injuries were all soft tissue in nature and resulted in no hospitalization, other than a brief visit to the emergency room on the night of the accident.
