Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Arabo v Turnbell; (COA-UNP, 11/19/1986; RB #981)

Print

Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 87861; Unpublished  
Judges Allen, Cynar, and Livo; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt    


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)]  
Important Body Function 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:  
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary disposition by the trial court on the issue of serious impairment of body function. In this pre-DiFranco case, the plaintiff claimed that he had sustained a back injury which had been diagnosed by one doctor as "probable herniated lumbar disc, chronic bursitis and tendinitis in the left shoulder, as well as osteoarthritis of the cervical and lumbosacral spine and the left acromioclavicular joint."

The Court of Appeals held that "contrary to the trial court's intimation in its ruling, an objectively manifested soft tissue injury can constitute a serious impairment of body function." In addition, the court held that limited flexion, if diagnosed by a passive range-of-motion test, will suffice as the type of medical measurement of an injury needed for a finding of objective manifestation. Although the court also concluded that plaintiff’s injuries involved an important body function, the Court of Appeals declined to hold that the plaintiff had established that the injury was "serious." When viewed objectively as required by Cassidy, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s injuries did not have a significant impact on his ability to lead a normal life. Besides mowing the lawn, plaintiff did not identify any activity which he performed before the accident that he could no longer perform because of his injuries.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram