Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #251473; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Griffin and Donofrio; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case alleged a clay shoveler’s fracture to his C-7 vertebra which was not corroborated by medical evidence. Defendant argued that even if plaintiff sustained an objectively manifested injury, the injury did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. The Court of Appeals agreed, noting that all physician imposed restrictions were lifted after six months. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff’s orthopedist released him to return to work without restrictions six months after the accident occurred. Plaintiff did not return to the employment he held at the time the accident occurred, and seemed to have difficulty retaining employment thereafter. He asserted that physical difficulties, particularly pain in his neck, prevented him from holding steady employment and engaging in recreational activities, such as playing basketball, as he had prior to the accident. However, after his orthopedist released him, plaintiff had no physician-imposed restrictions on his employment or recreational activities. Pain, in and of itself, is not an objectively manifested condition and cannot be relied upon to establish the existence of a serious impairment of body function. Moreover, self-imposed restrictions are not sufficient to create the existence of a serious impairment of body function. . . . No evidence created an issue of fact as to whether any injury suffered by plaintiff as a result of the accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life. The trial court did not err in determining that the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law under the circumstances. MCL 500.3135(2)(a). Summary disposition was proper.”
