Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #250472; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Meter and Owens; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. Twelve days after her auto accident, plaintiff, who was 84 years old at the time, complained of weakness and pain on her left side. However, x-rays revealed degeneration in her spine and hip, but no new injury. Four months later, plaintiff complained of weakness in her left leg which was diagnosed as ataxia, a loss of balance. Defendant’s expert examined plaintiff and determined she had arthritic degeneration of her lumbar spine, which pre-existed the auto accident. He did not attribute the ataxia to the auto accident. Nonetheless, plaintiff brought a claim alleging a serious impairment of a body function. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision, finding plaintiff failed to provide evidence to contradict the findings of defendant’s experts. Moreover, the court determined plaintiff failed to show that her injury affected her general ability to live her normal life. In so holding, the court stated:
“Plaintiff is an eighty-five year old woman who does not work. She testified that she could no longer walk for more than twenty minutes without pain, whereas she could walk for thirty minutes before the accident. Her treatment consisted of over-the-counter pain medication, taken as needed, and self-massage. On November 19, 2002, her physician reported that she had ‘a little difficulty’ with her left leg when walking but stated that she was in ‘no distress.’ . . . While somewhat restricted, plaintiff is able to walk, shop, drive, do craft projects, and teach craft classes. Although she may have been more restricted for a period of months after the accident, she has recovered to the point that, compared to her pre-impairment life, her postimpairment life is not so different that her ‘general ability’ to conduct the course of her normal life has been affected. . . . Plaintiff’s left leg weakness and occasional pain are not significant impairments to her general ability to lead her normal life. Therefore, plaintiff did not satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold for recovery of non-economic damages under Michigan’s No-Fault Statute.”
