Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248969; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Sawyer, and Smolenski; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era:1996-2010) [3135(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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. This appeal was decided without oral argument. Plaintiff sustained very ill-defined injuries which primarily consisted of injuries to his back resulting in muscle spasms for which plaintiff sought chiropractic treatment. In holding that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life, the court stated:
“A muscle spasm is an objectively identifiable injury, and the ability to use the back is an important body function. Dahlvig’s chiropractor diagnosed him as suffering from muscle spasms following the accident and opined that the spasms were attributable to the accident. Dahlbig’s assertion that he experienced constant pain following the accident and that he was unable to engage in recreational activities or do household chores to the extent he had prior to the accident did not create a question of fact as to whether his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Dahlvig continued to hold steady employment and to engage in various recreational activities. He operated under no physician-imposed restrictions. Pain, in and of itself, cannot be relied upon to establish the existence of a serious impairment of body function, and self-imposed restrictions are insufficient to create the existence of a serious impairment of body function. No evidence created an issue of fact as to whether any injury Dahlvig suffered as a result of the accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Absent such evidence, plaintiffs were unable to make out a prima facie case that Dahlvig suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court did not err in determining that the issue of whether Dahlvig suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law under the circumstances, MCL 500.3135(2)(a), and correctly granted summary disposition.”
