Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78321; Published
Judges Brennan, Cynar, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 142 Mich App 697; 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)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion is another affirmation of a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff sustained "whiplash injuries which caused the wearing of a cervical collar, limited range of motion of his neck and head, and his absence at work for three months." Plaintiff’s physician stated in the medical report that plaintiff had sustained "a tremendous amount of spasm and tenderness in his neck muscles and movement of his neck was extremely restricted. Three months later, the doctor pronounced "a nearly 100-percent resolution of the problem."
In affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant, the court made the following observation about threshold injuries: "Injuries which do not prevent a plaintiff from performing tasks related to employment, or which do not interfere with the general ability to live a normal life, do not constitute serious impairment of body function."
The court also stated that for purposes of a motion for summary judgment, "discovery need not be complete; the question is merely whether further discovery stands a fair chance of recovering factual support for the litigant's position."
