Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 70355; Published
Judges Allen, Brennan, and Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 135 Mich App 215; 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)]
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 is the fifth Court of Appeals Opinion interpreting and applying the Supreme Court's opinion in Cassidy v McGovern (item number 657) regarding threshold questions of serious impairment of body function. In this unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant holding that plaintiffs injuries were not sufficiently serious to constitute serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff's primary injury was a certain ill defined problem with his left hand. In describing the injuries, the Court noted that "medical testimony did not establish a conclusive diagnosis for plaintiff’s condition." Plaintiff was off work for four months following his accident Initially he sustained generalized injuries to his a rm, leg, back and surrounding soft tissues as well as to his left hand. Approximately one month after his accident, plaintiff began to experience numbness in the right hand. The company doctor indicated plaintiff was able to go to work four months after the accident even though plaintiffs personal physician advised against it Plaintiffs doctor stated that he "could not reach a definite diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis but that it was a possible diagnosis." He also could not state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether plaintiffs problems with his joints were related to the accident The defense expert testified that his examination revealed no abnormality in plaintiffs hands and that plaintiff was not disabled.
In ruling that plaintiffs injuries did not amount to serious impairment of body function, the Court made the following observations:
1. The Court characterized the "summary judgment" rule in Cassidy as follows: "when there is no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiffs injuries or when the factual dispute is not material to the determination of whether plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function, the trial court shall rule as a matter of law whether the threshold statutory requirement has been met." In holding that no such dispute existed in this particular case, the Court commented, "nor do we find that plaintiffs other injuries create a factual dispute which straddles the line demarcating those injuries which constitute serious impairment of body function and those which do not"
2. In commenting about the type of injury necessary to. satisfy the threshold, the Court stated "when determining whether a certain injury meets the threshold requirement for recovery of noneconomic loss, the court is to apply an objective standard which looks to the effect of the injury on the individual's general ability to lead a normal life." The Court further pointed out that under Cassidy, recovery for noneconomic loss is not predicated upon serious pain and suffering but on objectively manifested injuries which effect the functioning of the body. The Court noted that "plaintiff was not incapacitated by his injuries nor did they interfere in any significant manner with his normal lifestyle.... Plaintiffs injuries did not prevent him from performing those tasks related to his employment nor did they interfere with his general ability to live a normal life."
[Author's Comment: There appears to be a significant conceptual inconsistency between this opinion and Williams v Payne (item number 708), with regard to the requirement that an injury be "objectively manifested" in order to satisfy the threshold. In Williams, the Court of Appeals stated that the objective manifestation requirement meant either "objective medical measurements of injury or a patient's complaints of pain substantiated only by the patient's limited activities." The Williams court apparently chose the former standard, i.e. objective medical measurements of injury, as opposed to objective proof mat the patient's normal activities had been limited by the injury. The Braden court, however, appears to concentrate on the latter standard as being the appropriate index with respect to the objective manifestation requirement On three occasions in the opinion, the Court uses language which suggests that the important focus of its inquiry was whether or not there had been an effect on or interference with plaintiffs normal lifestyle. Therefore, under this standard, an injury could very well constitute a serious impairment of body function where there is objective evidence of interference with a plaintiff’s lifestyle even though the underlying injury pathology is not objectively medically measurable. To this extent, Williams and Braden appear to be inconsistent, unless of course, meeting either standard is deemed to be sufficient]
