Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248148; Unpublished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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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. The injuries involved in this case are ill-defined by the opinion. Apparently, plaintiff sustained some sort of injury to her back which the court found did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff says that, according to her own deposition testimony, she used a walker after the accident. But she does not cite, and we have not found, record evidence that plaintiff had a medical condition that required her to use a walker or that a medical professional instructed her to use a walker as a result of the accident. Thus, plaintiff has not established that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function based on her use of a walker because her subjective complaint of having to use a walker was not medically documented. . . . Similarly, plaintiff refers to her own deposition testimony as indicating that her left eye was swollen so that she could hardly see out of it for a period of several days to a week and that her vision in that eye was still not as good as in her right eye. However, she does not cite, and we have not found, record evidence of vision testing or other medical documentation of an impairment of her eyesight. Her subjective complaints of impaired vision are insufficient to establish an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. Further, any swelling to only one eye that lasted at most for a week cannot be considered to have affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life because it was not ‘of sufficient duration to affect the course of [her] life.’”
