Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #244983; Unpublished
Judges Cooper, O’Connell and Fort Hood; 2-1 (Judge Cooper 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In this 2-1 unpublished opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of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 #2454], finding that plaintiff’s knee injury was 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, finding that plaintiff failed to show that her residual impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In this case, the plaintiff sustained an ill-defined knee injury which required arthroscopic surgery for removal of loose cartilage and the excision of a plica from under the kneecap. Twenty days later, the plaintiff was released to work as a janitor. She was restricted from kneeling or squatting for six weeks. Plaintiff completed her physical therapy two months later and has not sought medical treatment since that time. Nevertheless, the plaintiff complained the knee injury impaired her ability to walk. In affirming, the court noted that although plaintiff may have alleged a negative effect, she failed to show that it affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“‘Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, plaintiff’s knee injury was objectively manifested and impaired her ability to walk, an important body function. However, only de minimus objective evidence was presented to show that plaintiff’s residual impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Plaintiff missed several weeks of work after surgery in September 2000, and thereafter returned to work as a janitor with restrictions against squatting or kneeling for six weeks. She was discharged from physical therapy in November 2000 after achieving her goals, and she had not consulted a physician regarding her knee since October 2000. Five months after surgery, plaintiff obtained a second job as a delivery truck driver, handling items weighing thirty to forty pounds. Although plaintiff complained of occasional knee pain, she did not work with any physician-imposed restrictions. Any limitations on recreational activity were also self-imposed by plaintiff. There was no objective evidence to support plaintiff’s complaint of continued pain. ‘Self-imposed restrictions, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, based on real or perceived pain’ are insufficient to establish that plaintiff’s general ability to conduct the course of her normal life has been affected. . . . ‘A negative effect on a particular aspect of an injured person’s life is not sufficient in itself to meet the tort threshold, as long as the injured person is still generally able to lead his normal life.’ . . . Based on the Kreiner decision, we affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.’”
Judge Cooper concurred in the result only.
