Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #247056; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Wilder 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 [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant.
The plaintiff in this case suffered bruises and unspecified injuries to his back for which he was prescribed a back brace that he wore for two months. Although plaintiff was told not to bend over or lift anything in excess of 30 pounds, he returned to work 10 days after the accident installing car radios and compact disc players. According to plaintiff he worked full time and available overtime but had to ask coworkers for help because the job duties required extensive bending. Plaintiff returned to school one month after the accident. Two years later, in February 2002, he underwent an independent medical examination which was normal. In May 2002, plaintiff saw another doctor who prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy. Plaintiff indicated the physical therapy improved his back condition. In August 2002, plaintiff again sought treatment for severe pain he experienced after he attempted to ride a horse. The plaintiff sought treatment again in December 2002 and was prescribed Skelaxin. The plaintiff said that although he has back pain he does not refrain from any activities, although he has had to limit the amount of time he spends participating in leisure activities.
The court held that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life, finding that he was off work for only two weeks, returned to school one month after the accident, and, although he has some discomfort, participates is all his former leisure activities. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff returned to work after two weeks, was attending school full-time after one month, and is enrolled in community college. Plaintiff was not forced to permanently reduce the hours of his workday, and instead continues to work full-time and, when available, overtime. Albeit with some discomfort, plaintiff is still able to participate in all leisure activities. Although evidence indicated plaintiff is unable to perform household chores, ‘[a] negative effect on a particular aspect of an injured person’s life is not sufficient in itself to meet the tort threshold.’ . . . In sum, even when this evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, reasonable jurors could not honestly reach different conclusions regarding whether plaintiff’s injury met the threshold requirement for serious impairment of body function. The trial court improperly denied defendants’ motion for directed verdict.”
AUSTIN V CORBIN; (COA-UNP, 12/14/2004, RB #2517)
Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #247056; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Wilder and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20041214_C247056_53_247056.OPN.PDF
STATUTORY INDEXING:
MCL 500.3135
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant.
The plaintiff in this case suffered bruises and unspecified injuries to his back for which he was prescribed a back brace that he wore for two months. Although plaintiff was told not to bend over or lift anything in excess of 30 pounds, he returned to work 10 days after the accident installing car radios and compact disc players. According to plaintiff he worked full time and available overtime but had to ask coworkers for help because the job duties required extensive bending. Plaintiff returned to school one month after the accident. Two years later, in February 2002, he underwent an independent medical examination which was normal. In May 2002, plaintiff saw another doctor who prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy. Plaintiff indicated the physical therapy improved his back condition. In August 2002, plaintiff again sought treatment for severe pain he experienced after he attempted to ride a horse. The plaintiff sought treatment again in December 2002 and was prescribed Skelaxin. The plaintiff said that although he has back pain he does not refrain from any activities, although he has had to limit the amount of time he spends participating in leisure activities.
The court held that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life, finding that he was off work for only two weeks, returned to school one month after the accident, and, although he has some discomfort, participates is all his former leisure activities. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff returned to work after two weeks, was attending school full-time after one month, and is enrolled in community college. Plaintiff was not forced to permanently reduce the hours of his workday, and instead continues to work full-time and, when available, overtime. Albeit with some discomfort, plaintiff is still able to participate in all leisure activities. Although evidence indicated plaintiff is unable to perform household chores, ‘[a] negative effect on a particular aspect of an injured person’s life is not sufficient in itself to meet the tort threshold.’ . . . In sum, even when this evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, reasonable jurors could not honestly reach different conclusions regarding whether plaintiff’s injury met the threshold requirement for serious impairment of body function. The trial court improperly denied defendants’ motion for directed verdict.”
