Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261213; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Schuette and Borrello; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 non-economic loss claim. Plaintiff suffered ill-defined injuries to her back and to her arm, for which she wore a sling for two weeks. On-going back pain led to a diagnosis of scoliosis at the thoracic spine. Plaintiff continued to experience pain which affects every aspect of her life. In affirming, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court properly determined that whether plaintiff met the serious impairment threshold with her complaint of plain was not a question for the jury. In this regard, it stated:
“The focus is not on the plaintiff’s subjective pain and suffering, but on injuries that actually affect the functioning of the body. . . . Residual impairments based on perceived pain are a function of ‘physician-imposed restrictions,’ not ‘[s]elf-imposed restrictions.’ . . . Plaintiff’s argument for this issue consists mainly of characterizing it as a mixed question of fact and law. . . . Plaintiff thus implies that the trial court erred in treating this as an issue properly decided by the court, instead of being given to the jury. However, Kreiner, supra, likewise involved plaintiffs who had long discontinued medical treatments for their injuries and who complained that their lingering discomforts prevented only a few of the sundry activities previously performed, and somewhat hindered certain others. . . . If the plaintiffs in Kreiner could not show a serious impairment in their general ability to lead their normal lives, . . . neither can plaintiff in the instant case.”
(Emphasis in original)
