Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 343606; Unpublished
Judges Shapiro, Beckering, and Kelly; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)]
General Ability/Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
A. Disposition:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, summary disposition for defendant was AFFIRMED because the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that her claimed injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
B. Nature of Injury/Disability:
The plaintiff in this case suffered multiple back injuries that were mostly unspecified. However, the court noted that Plaintiff’s injuries were evidenced by an MRI report and a spinal kinetics report “that showed some abnormalities including disc bulges and ligament hypertonicity.” Plaintiff was prescribed various work restrictions, “including that plaintiff avoid lifting anything over 15 pounds,” and claimed that her injuries affected here ability to engage in hobbies and daily activities. She was further prescribed “household replacement services for three months.”
C. Medical Treatment:
The Court did not describe the plaintiff’s post-accident course of treatment in detail. However, the court noted that plaintiff was seen by her primary care physician, and that “the balance of plaintiff’s medical records show that she received several chiropractic treatments but that she did not participate in physical therapy even though it was recommended. It does not appear that plaintiff was ever considered a surgical candidate. She recalled getting two or three epidural injections but there is no reference to injections in the medical records submitted.”
D. Element #1 – Objective Manifestation:
The Court did not discuss this element.
E. Element #2 – Important Body Function:
The Court did not discuss this element.
F. Element #3 – General Ability:
In holding that the plaintiff failed present sufficient evidence to satisfy the general ability element, the court stated “[a]lthough plaintiff filed suit nearly three years after the car accident, her response to defendant’s motion relied only on medical records from the first three months following the accident and her deposition testimony. Her physicians’ records from those months do not note expectations that the injury would be long lasting or produce functional limitations expected to last beyond the three-month period during which she was prescribed treatment. Dr. Marvin Bleiberg, an M.D. physiatrist, prescribed various work restrictions, including that plaintiff avoid lifting anything over 15 pounds. But these restrictions did not interfere with plaintiff’s ability to function as a paralegal. Nor has plaintiff asserted any difficulty with tasks relevant to her employment or her ability to function in any respect other than performance of some occasional athletic activities. She described having to limit her participation in running, bowling, archery, weight lifting and dancing. However, when asked how often she performed these activities before and after her injury, her answers demonstrated that these activities were not ones in which she had regularly participated and that she was able to continue participating in some of them.. . . In sum, there is no evidence that the accident resulted in plaintiff having continuing difficulties at home, at work or in any other setting other than at certain athletic activities in which she participated only occasionally, if not rarely. . . .[G]iven the limited record before us, we cannot conclude that limits on these occasional activities, standing alone, are significant enough to affect plaintiff’s general ability to live her normal life.”
