Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258084; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Jansen, and Talbot; 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 [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses finding that plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested. The plaintiff in this case sustained head and neck injuries consisting of occipital neuralgia and cervical strain/sprain as well as a aggravation to her pre-existing lower back injuries. In granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court found that plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed. In reversing, the court noted plaintiff’s physician, Dr. Lisa Pullum, detected muscle tenderness along plaintiff’s cervical spine; plaintiff’s range of motion was decreased; and two MRIs showed a loss of normal cervical lordosis, or inward curvature of plaintiff’s spine. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Plaintiff argues that her head and neck injuries, which consist of occipital neuralgia and a cervical strain/sprain, are objectively manifested. . . . We find that plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that her head and neck injuries were objectively manifested, medically identifiable injuries. Although an MRI conducted about five months after the accident indicated that plaintiff’s cervical spine was of ‘[s]atisfactory appearance,’ it also indicated a slight loss of the normally seen cervical lordosis, or inward curvature, of plaintiff’s spine. This loss of normal cervical lordosis was also noted on a subsequent MRI. . . . The objective manifestations of a spine injury can be established through x-rays indicating an abnormal spine. . . . Pullum testified that occipital neuralgia occurs with a flexion/extension injury caused by a hit to the back of the head. Pullum further stated that the occipital neuralgia could be caused by the collision, the rollover, or a combination of the events during which plaintiff hit her head. Pullum testified that plaintiff’s neck pain and the slight loss of normal cervical lordosis was caused by muscle spasm, which was caused by a flexion/extension or whiplash injury, that affects nerves, muscles, ligaments, and joints. She further explained her diagnosis by stating that a severe muscle spasm can actually straighten a person’s normal cervical curve, and that straightening was seen on plaintiff’s MRI report. Additionally, a finding that both plaintiff’s head and neck injuries were objectively manifested by the MRI report is proper because Pullum testified that they had the same underlying cause. Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that these injuries were objectively manifested.”
The court next determined that even though plaintiff had a history of lower back problems, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that her problems worsened after the accident. In so holding, the court noted that one physician testified that following the accident, plaintiff experienced a significant increase in her pain. In addition, another doctor testified the range of motion in her back decreased by 50 percent. In this regard, the court stated:
“Recovery is permitted in the case of a preexisting injury or condition if the trauma caused by the accident triggered symptoms from that condition. . . . Plaintiff suffered from several lower back maladies before the accident occurred, including some that were degenerative in nature. Plaintiff presented evidence indicating that she experienced a significant increase in the pain caused by her preexisting back problems. Pullum opined that the accident aggravated plaintiff’s preexisting back conditions. Another specialist, Dr. Girish Juneja, noted tenderness in plaintiff’s thoracic and lumbosacral paraspinal areas, and that her ‘[r]ange of motion is markedly restricted by more than 50% secondary to pain.’ This evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion that plaintiff’s new and aggravated lower back injuries were objectively manifested.”
