Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #247070; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, White, and Talbot; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 what appeared to be a relatively minor knee injury. Five weeks after the accident, an MRI of plaintiff’s left knee was normal, although he continued to complain of knee pain. Plaintiff was able to return to work full-time within one month of his injury. However, plaintiff continued to complain of periodic pain and swelling in his knee. One year after the accident, plaintiff underwent a diagnostic video arthroscopy of the left knee which showed his knee was completely normal. Accordingly, plaintiff was declared able to work without restrictions and all medical attention ended.
In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, the court stated:
“A court should compare plaintiff’s lifestyle before and after the accident in determining whether a factual dispute exists with respect to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries. A plaintiff must show that his general ability to lead his normal life has been significantly altered by his injury. In order for an impairment to be objectively manifested, there must be a medically identified injury or condition that has a physical basis. The objectively manifested injury plaintiff sustained was a suggestive strain to the knee as reflected by the MRI results only, but a knee injury or impairment was neither physically nor clinically manifested on examination. Further, there was no evidence that this injury affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. All of the medical evidence indicated that plaintiff’s knee was normal. Plaintiff supplied no medical or other factual support for his alleged serious impairment. The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition.”
The decision in this case was rendered without oral argument.
