Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260226; Unpublished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
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 grant of summary disposition for defendant.
In this case, plaintiff, a 51-year-old housewife, was injured on August 27, 2002 when struck by a ladder as it fell off a passing truck while she was riding a bicycle. Plaintiff sustained a laceration and a fracture of her right ankle. She also claimed an injury to her lower back. As a consequence of the ankle fracture, plaintiff initially used crutches to walk but was able to discontinue their use within two months. One year after the accident, plaintiff reported her ankle swelled when she did a lot of walking, but otherwise she suffered no long-term effects from the injury to her ankle. Regarding her back, plaintiff claimed she obtained help with all of her household chores for approximately one month after the accident. However, she resumed all of those activities by July, 2003. Sixteen months following the accident, she estimated her recovery at 95%.
In reviewing this case under Kreiner, supra, the Court of Appeals held that although the objective medical evidence established plaintiff suffered multiple injuries from the accident and they arguably affected several of her important body functions, nevertheless, plaintiff failed to show the injuries have “affected her general ability to lead her normal life.” Plaintiff’s continued limitations do not rise to the level of having any “perceptible effect on her usual activities.” Therefore, the court held plaintiff’s ankle and back injuries taken together had not satisfied the “serious impairment of body function” threshold under MCL 500.3135.
