Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #251030; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Neff and Cooper; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined injuries which primarily consisted of injuries to his neck and back with muscle spasms which were diagnosed by a physician and migraine headaches. Although the court recognized that a muscle spasm is an objectively identifiable injury, it found that plaintiff failed to show that the injury affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In so holding, the court stated:
“Espinoza did not play with his children or engage in activities such as weightlifting or hunting as he had before the accident. However, after the accident Espinoza continued to work full-time, and engaged in vigorous activities as part of his employment. . . . Espinoza’s general course of his overall life was unchanged by the accident. We find no error in the court’s conclusion that Espinoza’s injuries did not affect ‘his overall or broad ability to conduct the course of his normal life,’ and therefore he did not satisfy the ‘serious impairment of body function’ threshold. . . . Summary disposition was proper.”
