Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #251202; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Murphy and O’Connell; 2-1 (Judge O’Connell concurring in result only); 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 alleging a closed-head injury and a serious impairment of a body function. In addition to a closed-head injury, the plaintiff sustained an ill-defined neck and shoulder injury. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the court first addressed the closed-head injury, and found that plaintiff’s psychiatrist was unqualified to create a question of fact under MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii), because he did not regularly treat or diagnose closed-head injuries. The court then held that plaintiff failed to prove his claim that he suffered a serious impairment of a body function. In so holding, the court stated:
“In this case, plaintiff did not seek treatment for any injuries until four days after the accident, and when he did go to the emergency room, he only complained of neck and shoulder pain. The testing performed at the emergency room showed no injury, except degenerative deterioration in plaintiff’s back. Other tests failed to uncover any objectively manifested injury stemming from trauma suffered during the accident. Plaintiff worked almost the entire time from the accident to the time of the summary disposition hearing, only taking a few months off following his neck surgery. Plaintiff’s medical records indicated that he suffered from depression and insomnia prior to the accident, and problems with plaintiff’s back and neck were undisputedly attributed to natural causes, not to the accident. Therefore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate an objective manifestation of any injury attributable to the accident. Moreover, plaintiff failed to present any evidence of how his day-to-day activities have been affected by any of his injuries, even those of natural origin. . . . Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
Judge O’Connell concurred in the result only.
