Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #267040; Unpublished
Judges White, Fitzgerald, and Talbot; 2-1 (Judge White concurring); 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)]
Causation Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained a herniated cervical disc for which she underwent surgical treatment. In affirming summary disposition for defendant, the Court of Appeals found that although plaintiff first complained of neck pain after the accident, she failed to show that her injury was related to the motor vehicle accident. In so finding, the court noted that plaintiff had a lengthy history of back problems before the accident and no physician attributed the herniations to the motor vehicle accident. In this regard, the court declared:
“Plaintiff experienced back problems and exhibited degenerative changes in her spine prior to the accident. Following the accident, she exhibited herniations in her cervical spine. . . . However, no evidence created a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s cervical disc herniations were proximately caused by the accident. No physician with whom plaintiff consulted attributed the herniations to the accident. The physicians noted that plaintiff reported that her neck pain began after the accident, but no physician, after examining plaintiff and reviewing her medical records, opined that the herniations were caused or aggravated by the accident. The trial court did not err in finding that the evidence did not create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff sustained an objectively manifested injury as a result of the accident.”
Judge White concurred in a separate opinion, noting that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence that her surgery was related to her pre-existing degenerative disc disease.
