Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Rosloniec v Brouilette; (COA-UNP, 9/16/2003, RB #2403)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 240245; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Cavanagh, and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion courthouse graphic


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)] 
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)] 

TOPICAL INDEXING: 
Not applicable


CASE SUMMARY: 
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s injuries were not objectively manifested and, therefore, do not satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold.

Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 12, 1998, in which he suffered injuries to his neck, back, left shoulder, and right leg. Plaintiff argued that he had been diagnosed with cervical and vertebral sprain with paravertebral muscle spasms and a left rotator cuff strain and impingement with associated limited range-of-motion. Defendant argued that an EMG of plaintiff’s upper and lower extremities was normal, all x-ray studies were negative with the exception of minor degenerative changes in his lumbar spine and left shoulder, and that physical examinations revealed only cervical muscle spasms consistent with cervical muscle strain that was completely resolved by May 6, 1998.

The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s injuries consisted primarily of his subjective complaints of discomfort. The only objectively manifestations of plaintiff’s injuries were the presence of muscle spasms and a limited range-of-motion of his left shoulder and spine. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that these injuries did not constitute a serious impairment, because plaintiff had not established “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function.” The Court of Appeals did not address plaintiff’s argument that his impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life, because of its conclusion on the objective manifestation issue.


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