Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #245943; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Jansen, and Saad; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion is the first Court of Appeals decision following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], which interpreted the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function contained in §3135(7) of the Act. In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff in this case was an assistant school principal who sustained four rib fractures for which he spent six days in the hospital on intravenous pain medication. Thereafter, he was unable to work for approximately one month. After returning to work, plaintiff worked half days for one additional month, after which he was able to resume his full-time employment. Plaintiff testified that as a result of his injuries, he had ongoing pain and discomfort when performing certain work-related tasks. In addition, plaintiff alleged he continued to have difficulty breathing, problems sleeping, pain and discomfort in the rib area, and unilateral sweating on the right side of his face. Plaintiff further contended that since the accident, he had been unable to participate in riding his exercise bike and exercising at his athletic club, was unable to play golf and tennis, and was unable to assist his daughter with her volleyball practices. Moreover, plaintiff contended he was no longer able to perform certain household duties as he did prior to the accident, but he continued to mow the lawn.
Based upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s injury did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Although plaintiff presents evidence of ongoing discomfort and difficulty sleeping, these are minor changes and do not satisfy the no-fault threshold. . . . The evidence shows that the only changes to plaintiff’s activities are self-imposed restrictions of his prior recreational activities. Our Supreme Court stated that, ‘self-imposed restrictions, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, based on real or perceived pain’ are not sufficient to establish a residual impairment for the purposes of determining whether plaintiff’s ability to lead his general life has been affected. Kreiner, fn 17. Importantly, plaintiff’s medical evaluation confirmed that he can return to all normal work and household activities without restrictions. Indeed, plaintiff admitted that his personal doctor did not place any restrictions on any of his normal, daily activities. . . . We hold that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition because plaintiff failed to prove his injuries impacted his general ability to lead his normal life.”
