Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 247626; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Jansen, and Cooper; 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 (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision in December, 2001. She contended that she had been on heavy pain medication and disabled from work for over one year and claimed there was a question of fact for the jury as to whether she sustained a serious impairment of body function. The trial court determined that there was no showing by the plaintiff of any “objective reason” why she was disabled from performing her usual daily activities, including her work for General Motors, and that she had failed to show an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function which affects her general ability to lead her normal life.
On appeal, the court focused on whether the alleged impairment affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life. In plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion for summary disposition, she claimed she had been disabled for over a year, but did not provide any documentary evidence for this contention and did not specifically describe how the injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
On appeal, plaintiff claimed her general ability to lead a normal life had been affected, because she was disabled from returning to work. In support, plaintiff presented to the court an attending physician’s statement indicating she was disabled from work as of December 14, 2001, but would be able to return by January 1, 2004. Plaintiff also claimed for the first time on appeal, that she could no longer lift greater than five pounds, golf, walk for any period of time, do yard work, do housework, or visit her daughter as frequently as she did before the accident. However, there was no documentation or affidavit before the circuit court which supported any of the above contentions.
The Court of Appeals held that its review was limited to the evidence presented to the circuit court at the time the motion was decided. Therefore, summary disposition was properly granted in favor of defendants. The court did note that had the document attached to plaintiff’s appellate brief been presented to the circuit court and/or an affidavit from plaintiff regarding her inability to perform her daily activities listed above, and based upon the prior decisions of the Court of Appeals in Kreiner, summary disposition may not have been proper.
