Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #241842; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Wilder, and Kelly; 2-1 (Judge Neff dissenting); 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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. The plaintiff’s primary injury in this case was TMJ dysfunction and neck pain. The trial court ruled that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. On appeal, the defendant did not contest that plaintiff’s TMJ was an objectively manifested impairment or an impairment of important body function. Rather, defendant argued that the injury did not qualify because it did not sufficiently affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life. In agreeing with the defendant, the majority of the panel stated:
“This evidence demonstrates that plaintiff undeniably presented evidence that her injuries and resulting pain have had some effect on her life. But while ‘a serious effect is not required, any effect does not suffice either. Instead, the effect must be on one’s general ability to lead his normal life.’ Considering all aspects of plaintiff’s life, and comparing her life before and after the accident, the evidence presented reveals that plaintiff’s life has continued for the most part as it did before the accident. She is still primarily responsible for her children and household duties. She still performs household tasks, though she requires more assistance than before the accident. Regarding her relationships and emotions, . . . plaintiff testified in her deposition that she only has ‘a little bit more stress.’ . . . Considering all of the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that the trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiff’s alleged injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life.” (emphasis in original)
Judge Neff dissented, stating, “Plaintiff is the mother of three young children. It is difficult to imagine that her general ability to lead a normal life as a mother of three young children would not be seriously affected by the injury and the consequential pain and disability she has experienced and plaintiff’s deposition testimony supports that conclusion. To conclude otherwise trivializes her role as a wife and mother.”
