Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 239892; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Cavanagh, and Saad; unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court Order which had granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff sustained injury when struck from the rear by a vehicle. She immediately sought treatment at the emergency room. X-rays of her cervical spine revealed degenerative changes but no fractures or dislocations. Several months later, plaintiff presented to the emergency room with complaints of neck pain. An examination disclosed painful range-of-motion, but no motor, sensory, or reflex deficits. Plaintiff was diagnosed with acute radicular pain involvement in the cervical spine. Other examinations revealed muscle spasms and restricted range-of-motion in plaintiff’s cervical spine. Her family physician ordered a two month regimen of physical therapy. The physical therapist noted muscle spasms, decreased muscle strength, and decreased functional usage.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the basis that plaintiff had not demonstrated either that she had received an objectively manifested injury as a result of the accident, or that her ability to lead her normal life had changed.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff exhibited muscle spasms in the cervical area of her spine, and that muscle spasms are an objectively manifested injury. Bennett v Oakley, 153 Mich App 622 (1986). Furthermore, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist had concluded that plaintiff’s cervical osteoarthritis, an objectively manifested condition, was at a minimum, aggravated by the accident.
With respect to her ability to lead her normal life, plaintiff testified in her deposition that she no longer could lift objects of even moderate weight, perform household chores for any length of time, stand or sit for prolonged periods, or garden. She stated she could no longer engage in charitable activities or participate in some social activities at her church, because she could not drive for an extended period and could not lift and move objects such as chairs. Her physician told her to avoid activities that required bending or lifting.
The Court of Appeals held that a question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff sustained an objectively manifested issue and a question of fact existed as to whether or not plaintiff’s injury affected her ability to lead her normal life. Therefore, the trial court judgment was reversed.
