Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 246438; Unpublished
Judges Schuette, Bandstra, and Meter; 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:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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’s injuries in this case were ill-defined and apparently involved plaintiff’s neck and back. Plaintiff had sustained injuries to her neck and back in accidents occurring in 1995 and 1999. Before the 1999 accident, plaintiff was employed at a banquet center where she performed administrative work, part-time bartending and wait staff work. Although she was able to return to work a few days after the accident, she was not able to return to her regular schedule of 32 to 35 hours per week until a few weeks thereafter. She continued to work despite continuing neck and back pain. In October, 2001, plaintiff’s doctor allegedly advised her to reduce her work schedule because of back pain and, therefore, plaintiff decided to work part-time. Plaintiff testified that after the accident, she was not able to go camping, jet skiing, and perform heavy housecleaning and related domestic activities. However, she continued to travel, took up gardening, and was able to engage in sexual activity to the same extent as she had before the accident.
"In holding that these injuries did not significantly affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life, the court stated, “While it appears that plaintiff’s ability to perform her job was affected by the injuries sustained in the 1999 accident, like Straub and Kreiner, her life after the accident was not significantly different than it was before the accident. She already worked a part-time schedule of 32 to 35 hours per week, and while she allegedly could not work to this full capacity, she was nonetheless generally able to lead her normal life. . . . Accordingly, we find that plaintiff’s postimpairment life is not so different that her ‘general ability’ to lead her normal life has been affected. . . . Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant.”
