Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #244615; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Murphy and Smolenski; 2-1 (Judge Murphy 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 originally reversed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim [RB #2452], holding there was a genuine issue of fact whether plaintiff’s preexisting conditions were exacerbated by the accident and whether plaintiff’s injuries constituted a serious impairment of an important body function. The Michigan Supreme Court then remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428]. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, finding that plaintiff failed to show that she suffered a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff’s doctor testified that plaintiff sustained sternal and rib fractures in the accident. He also said it was likely that an occult fracture in the symphysis pubis region on the right side was the result of the accident. He further testified that symptoms from a preexisting compression fracture were exacerbated by the accident. Although plaintiff’s injuries were objectively manifested by and constituted an impairment of an important body function, the court found that even though plaintiff complained of back leg pain, she failed to show that the injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court reasoned:
“Plaintiff stated in her deposition that she suffers from pain in her back and legs. She also said that she can perform household chores ‘pretty well,’ but cannot dig, paint or mow her lawn. She also stated that she has problems stepping back and has muscle contractions that keep her up at night and prevent her from taking long trips. Finally, she stated that she can no longer work more than 20 hours per week. While these complaints certainly inconvenience plaintiff, her own deposition testimony establishes that she has been able to manage her pain with medications, is able to workout and is able to work regularly. Consequently, in light of Kreiner, we cannot find that plaintiff’s impairments have affected her overall ability to conduct the course of her normal life.”
Judge Murphy concurred in the result only.
