Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 317014; Unpublished
Judges Boonstra, Donofrio, and Gleicher; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEX:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(5)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era:1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEX:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of law that Plaintiff could not establish that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment because her claimed impairment was based wholly on “subjective symptoms and complaints.”
In this case, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck while she was traveling on I-96. Plaintiff “denied injury” at the scene of the accident, but sought treatment for “neck and back pain” later that day. CT scans of her cervical and thoracic spine revealed no abnormalities, and Plaintiff was prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication. Her back and neck pain persisted, and more sophisticated imaging studies were performed. However, they revealed no spinal injuries or irregularities. Plaintiff further underwent a series of facet injections, followed by thermal radiofrequency neurotomies. According to Plaintiff, “these therapies only temporarily allayed her pain.” The court held as a matter of law that Plaintiff could not establish that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment because her claimed impairment was based wholly on “subjective symptoms and complaints.” In this regard, the court reasoned, “Despite Lenk’s back and neck pain, she missed only five days of work as a mill operator. Other than a snow-shoveling restriction issued at her specific request, Lenk’s activities are medically unlimited. And according to her medical records, Lenk has no obvious or measurable neurologic deficits. Lenk predicates her impairment claim on wholly subjective symptoms and complaints, such as neck stiffness and pain with movement. Accordingly, she has failed to advance any evidence of an objective impairment that would satisfy McCormick’s first prong.” Notably, in reaching this conclusion, the court did acknowledge that a 2013 MRI revealed a “[r]ight paracentral disc herniation at T9-T10,” However, the court found that the Plaintiff “presented no evidence linking this new finding with her 2010 automobile accident.”
