Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #238893; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, White and Hoekstra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals originally reversed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim [RB #2366]. The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428]. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that although plaintiff’s injuries affected an important body function, the injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life.
Plaintiff’s ill-defined injuries apparently involved her neck and shoulders. Although the court found that the injuries were objective, it found they did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. In so holding, the court stated:
“While plaintiff has not gone on her annual camping or skiing trips since the accident, these constitute self-imposed restrictions. Other than stating she should not generally lift items over twenty pounds, her doctors have not placed any restrictions on her activities. Although plaintiff testified that she misses two or three days of work per month due to headaches and back pain, she continues to work full-time as a secretary, generally putting in a nine hour day. Since the accident plaintiff’s husband has done the majority of the cleaning, but plaintiff still cooks and does some laundry. Further, although she has to get up and stretch during movies and has difficulty riding in a car for more than an hour or an hour-and-a-half at a time, this does not constitute a significant change in her normal life. Consequently, we find that plaintiff has not satisfied the ‘serious impairment of body function’ threshold for the recovery of noneconomic damages set forth in MCL 500.3135.”
