Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78775; Published
Judges Wahls, Bronson and Megargle; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 145 Mich App 169; Link to Opinion 
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)]
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict in favor of defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff in this case sustained a soft tissue back injury as a result of a forceful rearend collision. She was taken by ambulance to the emergency room where she was x-rayed, examined and released after all tests were negative. She treated with her doctor initially three times a week with ultrasound, muscle relaxant shots, tranquilizers and pain killers. Subsequently she sought the services of a chiropractor for a limited period of time. She underwent physical therapy approximately five times a week for a six-month period. At the time of her accident, plaintiff was married. She and her husband lived an athletic, active lifestyle. As a result of her injuries, plaintiff testified that she was unable to engage in most of her physical activities. As a result, her marriage deteriorated to the point that her husband left her in favor of a more active female companion. Plaintiff also testified that she was forced to quit her job as manager of a bowling center because of her back pain. Furthermore, she was forced to quit a subsequent job as a waitress for the same reason. Plaintiff described her injuries as continuing pain in the back and neck with shooting pains radiating into the legs and occasional numbness in the left arm.
In holding against plaintiff on the threshold issue, the Court of Appeals noted the following:
1. The fact that plaintiff has sustained a "soft tissue" injury does not disqualify her from pursuing her tort remedies. The court stated, "The no-fault act makes no distinction between persons with soft tissue injuries and those with other injuries. Nevertheless, the Cassidy requirement that an injury be objectively manifested has proved especially difficult for persons with soft tissue injuries to satisfy."
2. A clinical finding of limited range of motion based upon "active" testing (wherein the plaintiff is in control of when to stop the motion) does not constitute objective manifestations of injury.
3. Testimony by the treating physician that plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries produced microscopic tearing and bleeding which then led to scarring of the soft tissues does not qualify as an objective finding as it is based upon a "chain of assumptions which have not been demonstrated."
4. Muscle spasms which are palpable by the examiner are an objective manifestation of injury. However, there was inadequate evidence here that the muscle spasms had any effect on "plaintiff’s body function."
5. Although plaintiff’s physician concluded that plaintiff had a 20- to 25-pound weight lifting restriction, it was plaintiff who essentially set her own standards for most of her activities. There was no testimony that plaintiff was prohibited from engaging in work or social activities.
6. Evidence of plaintiff’s reduction in social activities does not "objectively establish seriousness." The court stated, "While plaintiff’s testimony indicates a significant change in her normal lifestyle — an athletic, outdoors one — we believe she has the general ability to live what can objectively be termed a normal life."
