Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #248136; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Saad, and O’Connell; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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. Plaintiff in this case sustained injuries which were objectively confirmed to consist of a herniated disc at C 5-6 and ulnar nerve entrapment at the plaintiff’s left elbow. Plaintiff was able to return to work three and one-half weeks after the accident. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant, ruling there was no evidence showing plaintiff’s disc herniation and ulnar nerve entrapment were proximately caused by the accident, or that plaintiff’s injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Shortly after the accident plaintiff exhibited objectively manifested injuries, including a herniated disc at C5-6 and ulnar nerve entrapment in her left elbow. No medical records documented the existence of these injuries prior to the accident. The function of the neck and arms are important body functions. However, no evidence showed that plaintiff’s injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. She returned to work three and one-half weeks after the accident occurred, and was working full-time at the time of her deposition. Plaintiff’s lifting restriction, the only restriction imposed by a physician, did not impede her ability to hold a full-time position. Plaintiff refrained from engaging in some recreational activities; however, self-imposed restrictions do not establish that an injury has affected a person’s general ability to lead her normal life. No evidence showed that plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life was adversely affected by any injury caused by the accident. Absent such evidence, plaintiff was unable to make out a prima facie case that she suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court did not err in determining that the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law under the circumstances, . . . and correctly granted summary disposition.”
