Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261138; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Schuette and Borrello; 2-1 (Judge Schuette dissenting); 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)]
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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 reversed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim. The plaintiff in this case suffered an ill-defined back injury which was objectively manifested by an MRI. The trial court determined that although plaintiff’s injury was objectively manifested, the injury did not affect his ability to lead his normal life. In reversing and remanding the matter for further consideration, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff had been disabled by the injury for over two years, had several surgeries, underwent physical therapy, was off work for eight months and returned to work with physician-imposed restrictions. In this regard, it stated:
“Plaintiff’s back injury proved debilitating for more than two years and never completely resolved. Plaintiff underwent several months of physical therapy, which was unsuccessful, and treated with drug therapy. As a result of the impairment, plaintiff was unable to work for eight months. He was thereafter cleared to work and, according to one doctor, restricted from ‘pushing, pulling, lifting, bending’ and standing for long periods of time. Physician-imposed restrictions can establish residual impairment. As a result, plaintiff became depressed, did very little, and for the most part remained in bed. He began sleeping on the floor while wearing a cervical collar to alleviate the pain. Based on such evidence, we find that there was a genuine issue of fact whether plaintiff’s injury affected his general ability to lead his normal life.”
