Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260375; Published
Judges Murphy, White and Smolenski; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 266 Mich. App. 505, 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published unanimous 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 reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic losses, finding that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment as a matter of law. The plaintiff in this case sustained a fractured right shoulder and a fractured left hand. The left hand was placed in a cast and the right arm was immobilized for six weeks with a double sling. During the month that both plaintiff’s arms were immobilized, his wife had to help him eat, dress and perform personal hygiene functions. After six weeks, the plaintiff no longer required the immobilizer sling. Three months after the accident the plaintiff returned to unrestricted work and was able to resume coaching a middle school girls’ basketball team. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that an impairment that lasted no more than three months did not meet the serious impairment of body function threshold. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It determined the injuries constituted a serious impairment as a matter of law because they were objectively manifested, he was helpless for one month, he could no longer lift his right arm above his shoulder, and he could not return to activities in which he participated before the injury. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, Williams' injuries were objectively manifested by x-rays. His arms were rendered virtually useless for one month following the accident, and he was unable to feed himself or otherwise attend to his basic needs. Some three months after the accident, Williams returned to work and to his position as a coach for a middle school girls basketball team. Although Williams was able to return to these positions, he could no longer engage in activities that required him to lift his right arm above his head. Because of this, he could not demonstrate to his students how to shoot basketball. In addition, Williams testified at his deposition that before the accident he had played golf two or three times a week. After the accident, Williams could no longer play golf or engage in activities with his grandchildren, such as playing catch. Although no evidence showed that Williams' physician restricted him from engaging in various recreational activities, and although self-imposed restrictions will not establish a residual impairment, see Kreiner, supra at 133 n 17, Williams' physician did indicate that Williams lacked full range of motion in his left wrist and that his right shoulder was healing in such a way that its range of motion would be permanently limited. While these limitations might not rise to the level of a serious impairment of body function for some people, in a person who regularly participates in sporting activities that require a full range of motion, these impairments may rise to the level of a serious impairment of a body function. See Kreiner, supra at 134 n 19. Given Williams' participation in teaching basketball and his love of golf, which he can no longer pursue, we must conclude that the limitations imposed by Williams' injuries affect his general ability to lead his normal life. Consequently, as a matter of law, Williams' injuries constitute a serious impairment of body function and the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition for defendant.”
