Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248512; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Jansen, and Bandstra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB # 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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. The injuries sustained by plaintiff in this case were ill-defined, but apparently involved plaintiff’s neck, back, and arm. Prior to the accident, plaintiff had frequently complained about neck and back problems and regularly consumed narcotic pain medication for those problems. Plaintiff had also been previously diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Plaintiff underwent an independent medical examination by a defense physician who opined that her accident did not impair her musculoskeletal system. Moreover, x-rays and an MRI performed two years after plaintiff’s accident following plaintiff’s fall down a flight of stairs, demonstrated mild disc bulging but no herniation. An MRI taken two years after that, showed bulging discs at several locations. Plaintiff offered an affidavit from a doctor who opined that plaintiff had suffered a herniated disc and had limited range-of-motion and that these conditions were consistent with her accident. However, there was no evidence that plaintiff was actually treated by any physician following the subject accident. In holding that plaintiff’s injury did not satisfy the threshold, the court stated:
“Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for summary disposition because the evidence did not support Eckman’s claim that injuries from the accident affected her general ability to lead her normal life. An examination of Eckman’s ‘normal life’ before the accident indicates that, for several years, Eckman had told a series of physicians that her neck and back problems were so severe that she needed a constant supply of narcotic pain medication, and that the pain prevented her from working or engaging in other activities. Because Eckman did not show that her life was significantly different before and after the accident, she did not make out a prima facie case that she suffered a serious impairment of body function. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the Deweys’ motion for summary disposition.”
