Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 242018; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Murphy, and Neff; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
The trial court found that plaintiff’s impairment was not objectively manifested, because she suffered only from subjective injuries–limited range of cervical and thoracic motion with spasm and tenderness in plaintiff’s neck, shoulder, and back–that were not verified by the objective tests–magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or CT scan. The trial court also found that plaintiff’s impairment did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life, because it was a soft tissue injury which would heal quickly.
With regard to the issue of objective manifestation, the Court of Appeals noted that palpable muscle spasms are objective, as a doctor must palpate trigger areas looking for a asymmetrical findings which indicate injury. Plaintiff’s doctor did note muscle spasms in her upper back five days after the accident. Another doctor noted trigger points in plaintiff’s right trapezius, right sternocleidomastoid muscle, and right paracervical musculature. Plaintiff’s physical therapist noted spasm in the upper trapezius also. Based upon these objective tests, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have found, minimally, that there was a factual dispute regarding whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment.
With respect to the issue of the affect on plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life, the Court of Appeals held that there does not need to be a serious effect on a person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life, but not just any effect is sufficient to show a serious impairment of body function.
In this case, plaintiff missed only one week of school and work. She was able to ski shortly after the accident, even though she could not ski competitively. There were no restrictions placed on plaintiff’s activities at home. Based upon this evidence, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life was not affected.
