Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #247980 and #250133; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Bandstra, and Schuette; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim. In this case, plaintiff sustained back injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The court agreed that the injuries were objectively manifested because there were MRI findings of a bulging disc and CAT scan findings of arthritic changes, degenerative disc changes, and neural foraminal encroachments, all at the levels of the fifth, sixth, and seventh vertebraes. However, the court held these objectively manifested injuries did not affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life. Approximately one month prior to her accident, plaintiff began full-time employment with a painting company where she worked 30 to 40 hours per week. Prior to that employment, however, plaintiff has been unemployed for approximately six months and worked only sporadically prior to that time. As a result of plaintiff’s injuries, she alleged she was now unable to work full-time as a painter and could only work part-time. Moreover, she alleged she was unable to do certain household activities. The court ruled that these changes in plaintiff’s life did not establish that her general ability to live her normal life had been sufficiently affected. In this regard, the court stated:
“Looking at plaintiff’s life as a whole, before and after the accident, and the nature and extent of her injuries, we conclude that her impairment did not affect her overall ability to conduct the course of her normal life. Although she is unable to work full-time as a painter, the evidence suggests that steady work is not a key component of plaintiff’s normal life. Before the accident, plaintiff held her job for one month, and prior to that was unemployed for six months. . . . The record reveals that plaintiff continued to engage in most of the same activities she did before the accident with the exception of working. However, coupled with the fact that plaintiff was employed for only a month prior to the accident, voluntarily choosing not to work for the six months prior thereto, we conclude that there was no effect on plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life. Because plaintiff failed to establish that her impairment affected her general ability to conduct the course of her normal life, she did not satisfy the ‘serious impairment of body function’ threshold for recovery of noneconomic damages. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary disposition. . . .”
Plaintiff also had a claim for no-fault PIP benefits which the court held could not be reduced or setoff by the amount plaintiff was liable to pay for case evaluation sanctions in the tort case. However, defendant Farm Bureau was entitled to setoff from its obligation to pay taxable costs in the PIP action, the amount that plaintiff was obligated to pay in case evaluation sanctions in the third-party case.
