Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #251160; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Whitbeck and Jansen; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case complained of headaches and neck pain but did not seek treatment until four months after the accident. After being symptom free for a week, plaintiff returned to work. Plaintiff said she sought medical treatment a year later. Plaintiff’s attorney admitted he had no medical documentation that plaintiff’s condition was the result of the traffic accident. The plaintiff claimed she had been told to avoid activities in which she could strain her neck. Among her complaints, plaintiff said she cannot sit in a car for long periods of time, she experiences dizziness, has short-term memory loss and disabling headaches, can no longer play horseshoes, crochet, sew, do heavy housework, can produce, ride her bicycle or play actively with her grandchildren.
The court found no factual dispute that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function. However, it found that plaintiff failed to show that her injuries had a serious affect on her ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Looking at plaintiff’s life as a whole, before and after the accident, even if as the result of injuries received in the automobile accident, she feels pain that limits her ability to do housework, pick up her grandchildren, knit, or crochet, this does not reach the threshold for establishing serious impairment of bodily function for purposes of the no-fault act, because the results, despite their limitations, do not affect her ‘general ability to conduct the course of his normal life.’ . . . Plaintiff likewise complains of pain and inconvenience, but not a serious affect on her ability to lead a normal life. For the above reasons, we find on review de novo that summary disposition was proper for this reason as well.”
