Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #251254; Unpublished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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 defendant on plaintiffs’ claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiffs in this case sustained ill-defined injuries which primarily consisted of injuries to their backs that resulted in muscle spasms which were diagnosed by a physician. Although a muscle spasm is an objectively identifiable injury, the court concluded plaintiffs failed to show they were unable to lead their normal lives even though they had unspecified restrictions for a period of time. In so ruling, the court stated:
“For some time after the accident, plaintiffs had unspecified restrictions on their activities. However, no evidence showed that those restrictions lasted longer than a few months. Plaintiffs indicated that after the accident they did not engage in recreational activities as they had prior to the accident, and Stallworth stated that he no longer did occasional work as a painter or plasterer. No evidence showed that any physician placed restrictions on either plaintiff’s ability to work or engage in 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 presented in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary disposition created an issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs’ injuries affected their general abilities to lead their normal lives. Absent such evidence, neither plaintiff was able to make a prima facie case that he or she suffered a serious impairment of body function. We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the issue was a question of law under the circumstances. Summary disposition was proper.”
