Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 210104; Unpublished
Judges Markman, Saad, and Houk; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition regarding plaintiff's bodily injury tort claim alleging serious impairment of body function.
The case was decided under the rules articulated in the Supreme Court's decision in DiFranco v Pickard [Item No. 978]. The plaintiff in this case suffered a fractured clavicle and three (3) fractured ribs. His personal physician told plaintiff to "take it easy" for two (2) weeks. Thirty (30) days after the accident, plaintiff’s physician returned plaintiff to work without any restrictions. Subsequently, another doctor diagnosed certain neurological problems which he opined were caused by the accident, but this doctor did not impose any restrictions on plaintiff’s activities and prescribed no medication.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and held that no reasonable mind could conclude that these injuries constituted serious impairment of body function under the DiFranco test. The court stated,
"Plaintiff's injuries kept him off work for only one month, did not require complicated treatment, and were considered by his personal physician to have resolved within four weeks of the accident. While Dr. Gorier diagnosed injuries which he attributed to the accident, he imposed no restrictions on plaintiff's activities and prescribed no medication. The fact that plaintiff may have had some lingering minor pain or disparity of muscle strength did not create a jury question as to whether his impairment was serious.... In the instant case, plaintiff's injuries resolved within one month and did not limit his activities after that period. The trial court did not err in finding that reasonable minds could not differ on the issue of whether plaintiff's injuries constituted a serious impairment of body function under the DiFranco test.”
