Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259906 and 260849; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, White and Smolenski; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claims for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained an undefined injury which resulted in frequent headaches and sleeplessness. The injury affected his employment for a short period of time but his education was uninterrupted. As to recreational activities, there were no limitations. Based on these facts, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life was unaffected. In this regard, the court stated:
“On the record before us, we agree with the circuit court that the evidence did not create a question of fact whether plaintiff’s injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. His employment restrictions affected his employment as a cook in that he was off work for a short period of time, and then had restrictions, but he indicated that he was working as a cook until he was able to obtain employment as a website developer. . . . There is no indication that his injuries negatively affected that line of employment. Plaintiff concedes in his appellate brief that he was released to work without restrictions in March 2003. . . . Additionally, plaintiff presented no evidence of any physician-imposed restrictions on his recreational activities. As determined by our Supreme Court in Kreiner, supra, p 133 n 17, self-imposed restrictions that are based solely on pain are insufficient to establish residual impairment. Plaintiff indicated that he had frequent headaches for approximately two years and his sleep is reduced because of the pain, but there is no indication that this has negatively affected his general ability to lead his normal life.”
