- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
FLEMINGS v. JENKINS
Summary of Opinion: FLEMINGS v. JENKINS, Docket No. 72933 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 1984)
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff sued to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, alleging her injuries constituted a "serious impairment of body function" under the Michigan no-fault act, MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135. Defendants stipulated to plaintiff's version of the nature and extent of her injuries. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3), concluding the injuries did not constitute a "serious impairment of body function." Plaintiff appealed as of right and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Reported factual allegations in the record: plaintiff's injuries were primarily lower back and neck pain; she was hospitalized for nine days; the treating physician noted muscle spasms, lumbar tenderness, and limited flexion. Upon discharge she received medication and a brace (which she later discontinued because of discomfort). She missed three and one-half weeks of work, then returned to her job as a housekeeper. She received outpatient physical therapy and saw her treating physician 11 times during a 1-1/2 year period. Plaintiff alleged she still experienced severe pain, had physical restrictions, and that her lifestyle and ability to function in routine daily or social activities had been changed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's injuries constitute a "serious impairment of body function" within the meaning of the Michigan no-fault act.
- Whether the medical findings in the record (muscle spasm, tenderness, limited flexion) constitute the required objectively manifested injuries to support a finding of "serious impairment of body function."
- Whether the injury's effect on the plaintiff's ability to lead a normal life (mode of living) was sufficiently significant to meet the statutory standard.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- Plaintiff contended her injuries from the automobile accident constituted a "serious impairment of body function" under MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.
- She asserted continued severe pain, resulting physical restrictions, and a changed lifestyle that prevented her from functioning in routine daily or social activities.
Defendants' Arguments
- Defendants stipulated to plaintiff's version of the nature and extent of her injuries but moved for summary judgment arguing that those injuries did not constitute a "serious impairment of body function."
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich. 483, 488; 330 N.W.2d 22 (1982) | Where there is no factual dispute, the question whether injuries constitute a "serious impairment of body function" is a question of law; serious impairment involves impairment of an important body function and the effect on a person's ability to lead a normal life; recovery is predicated on objectively manifested injuries. | The court applied Cassidy as the governing legal standard for evaluating serious impairment, using its directives on objective manifestations and effect on normal life to review the undisputed facts. |
| Williams v Payne, 131 Mich. App. 403; 346 N.W.2d 564 (1984) | Identified as authority indicating medical findings such as muscle spasm, tenderness and limited flexion do not generally support a finding of "serious impairment of body function." | The court relied on Williams to conclude the medical findings in this case do not rise to the level of objective manifestations that would support a finding of serious impairment. |
| LaHousse v Hess, 125 Mich. App. 14; 336 N.W.2d 219 (1983) | Presented as a contrasting decision (implying a different outcome on facts not detailed in this opinion). | The court noted LaHousse by way of contrast to Williams, signaling that the outcome can depend on differing factual circumstances; the court nevertheless found the facts here aligned with Williams rather than LaHousse. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by identifying the legal standard from Cassidy: when facts are undisputed, whether injuries constitute a "serious impairment of body function" is a question of law that requires (1) objectively manifested injury and (2) an impairment of an important body function with a significant effect on the person's ability to lead a normal life.
Applying that standard to the undisputed facts, the court analyzed two principal points:
- Objective manifestations: The court observed that the recorded medical findings—muscle spasm, tenderness, and limited flexion—"do not rise to the level of objective manifestations of injuries which generally support a finding of 'serious impairment of body function,'" citing Williams v Payne. The court noted LaHousse as a contrast but did not find this case factually analogous to LaHousse.
- Effect on mode of living/normal life: Even assuming the medical findings constituted objective manifestations, the court found insufficient evidence that plaintiff's mode of living was significantly altered. The court relied on specific facts: plaintiff returned to work three and one-half weeks after the accident, continued to work thereafter, discontinued treatments (though used home remedies), and had not demonstrated a significant change in lifestyle. The court also held that plaintiff's generalized assertions of pain and physical restrictions did not establish the required significant effect on lifestyle or impairment of an important body function.
Because the legal standard requires both objective manifestations and a significant effect on normal life, and the undisputed facts did not establish those elements here, summary judgment for defendants was appropriate as a matter of law.
Holding and Implications
AFFIRMED.
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, concluding plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "serious impairment of body function" under MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.
Implications: The direct consequence is that plaintiff's no-fault claim for serious impairment was denied and the summary judgment in favor of defendants was upheld. The opinion applies existing precedent (Cassidy, Williams, LaHousse) to the undisputed facts and does not purport to announce a new legal principle.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff brought suit to recover for injuries arising out of an automobile accident. She claimed her injuries constituted a "serious impairment of body function", recoverable under the Michigan no-fault act. MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135. Defendants stipulated to plaintiff's version of the nature and extent of her injuries. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3), finding that her injuries did not constitute a "serious impairment of body function". Plaintiff appeals as of right. We affirm.
Plaintiff's injuries consisted primarily of lower back and neck pain. Plaintiff was hospitalized for nine days. The treating physician noted muscle spasms, tenderness in the lumbar area and limited flexion. Upon discharge plaintiff received medication and a brace, which she discontinued wearing because of discomfort. She missed three and one-half weeks of work, then resumed her job as a housekeeper. She received physical therapy on an outpatient basis and saw her treating physician 11 times during a 1-1/2 year period. She alleged that she still had severe pain and resulting physical restrictions. She further alleged that her lifestyle had changed and she could not function in routine daily or social activities.
Where there is no factual dispute, the question of "serious impairment of body function" is a question of law. Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich. 483, 488; 330 N.W.2d 22 (1982). Serious impairment due to injury involves the impairment of an important body function and the effect of the injury on a person's ability to lead a normal life. Cassidy, supra, p 505. Furthermore, recovery is predicated on objectively manifested injuries. Cassidy, supra, p 505.
The facts in this case do not support plaintiff's claim of a "serious impairment of body function". The medical findings of muscle spasm, tenderness and limited flexion do not rise to the level of objective manifestations of injuries which generally support a finding of "serious impairment of body function". See Williams v Payne, 131 Mich. App. 403; 346 N.W.2d 564 (1984); contrast LaHousse v Hess, 125 Mich. App. 14; 336 N.W.2d 219 (1983). Even if, however, these medical findings constitute objective manifestations of plaintiff's injuries, it does not appear that plaintiff's mode of living has been significantly altered. She returned to work three and one-half weeks after the accident; she has continued to work; she discontinued treatments, although she still uses home remedies. Furthermore, plaintiff's generalized assertions that she has resulting physical restrictions and still suffers from pain do not constitute a significant effect on her lifestyle nor an impairment of an important body function.
Affirmed.
Alert