Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 249044; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, White and Talbot; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 plaintiff in this case sustained a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) injury. Two weeks after her accident, plaintiff’s doctors observed swelling and slight crepitus in her left TMJ joint. Two years after the accident, various doctors confirmed that plaintiff had sustained TMJ dysfunction on both her right and left side, had mild disc protrusion at the 6th and 7th cervical vertebra, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), and neck/back pain, tenderness, and spasms. Plaintiff’s course of treatment included bite splint therapy for approximately one year, frequent chiropractic care for about one month, physical therapy for approximately four months, and a total disability from work for approximately four months. The court stated that, “Given the substantial medical documentation of [plaintiff’s] injuries, we are satisfied that no factual dispute exists regarding the nature and extent of [plaintiff’s] injuries.” Therefore, summary disposition was appropriate. The court then focused on the central issue which was whether plaintiff’s injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In answering this question in the negative, the court stated:
“Hewelt missed one day of work after the accident, and then approximately four months of work almost three years after the accident. She is able to perform all the tasks of her job as a dispatcher, although with some discomfort, including talking on the phone and using the computer. Hewelt uses a headphone to reduce tension on her neck. She continues to garden, exercise, clean the house, and take care of her family, although with discomfort and assistance. Hewelt has described her pain as ‘intermittent’ and rated it as a two on a scale of ten, with ten being the worst pain possible. Her treatment has consisted of bite splint therapy beginning shortly after the accident, and chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy commencing over two years after the accident. Several of Hewelt’s physicians noticed her injuries improving over the course of their examinations. No surgeries were performed. As of January 2003, no doctor considered Hewelt disabled and, with the exception of the bite splint which she may continue to wear at night, Hewelt was not receiving any medical treatment for her injuries. One of defendant’s doctors opined that Hewelt’s condition could not be improved with further chiropractic treatment. The evidence indicates that Hewelt’s ability to move her neck and jaw, to use her back to lift objects, to garden, and to sit in a chair for lengths of time has been functionally diminished since the accident. We conclude under these circumstances that Hewelt’s general ability to lead her normal life has not been affected by her impairment. . . . Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and in denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition.”
