Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260257; Unpublished
Judges Cooper, Fort Hood and Gribbs; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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. The plaintiff in this case experienced debilitating headaches before and after her automobile accident. Before the accident, plaintiff took medication, had nerve block injections, and underwent surgery. After the accident, she continued to take medication, had additional nerve block injections, and had a nerve stimulator surgically implanted. She improved significantly a month after the surgery and had no medical restrictions. In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals found plaintiff failed to show that her accident had caused any effect on her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff suffered debilitating headaches before and after the accident. Before the accident, she took medication, had nerve block injections, and underwent surgery. The pain from the headaches left her unable to work. After the accident, plaintiff was still unable to work. She continued on the medication she had been taking, and had three nerve block injections in 2001 and surgery in May 2002. She improved significantly within a month. She continued to use the surgically implanted nerve stimulators, and by May 2003, the problem was essentially resolved. Apart from the positive results of the surgery, there was no change in plaintiff’s life before and after the accident. Although she had obtained a job just days before the accident, she apparently abandoned it after the accident. There is no indication that she was medically restricted from working, and ‘[s]elf-imposed restrictions, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, based on real or perceived pain do not establish’ residual impairment. . . . In light of such evidence, we conclude that plaintiff did not meet the serious impairment threshold for tort recovery.”
