Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #283030; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Fitzgerald, and Zahra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam post-McCormick opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary disposition upon the issue of serious impairment of body function.
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile-motorcycle collision on May 31, 2004. He suffered an “avulsion fracture off of the ulnar base of the proximal phalanx” on his right thumb in the collision. Plaintiff’s right hand was in a thumb cast for two-and-one-half weeks, then the cast was replaced with a thumb splint for an additional 10 days. Plaintiff continued to report pain when flexing and extending his thumb in December 2004, and also had a mild decreased range of motion of about 15%. His physician stated that it was a “good likelihood” that he would suffer from traumatic arthritis in the joint in the years to come. Subsequent reports in 2007 indicated that plaintiff’s range of motion and his continued pain appeared to be permanent, as did his mildly decreased grip strength.
Plaintiff testified that he had no trouble performing his job duties as a result of his injury and no physician had placed any restrictions on the type of work he could perform. Plaintiff maintained that he was unable to do certain things around the house during the time his thumb was in a cast or a splint, but he was later able to perform normal household tasks and chores. Plaintiff also resumed most of his activities after the cast and splint were removed, including hunting, riding a bicycle, fishing, playing pool, and riding a motorcycle.
In February 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the serious impairment issue. On appeal, after first ordering the matter held in abeyance pending the decision in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded to the court for further consideration in light of McCormick.
Upon further consideration, the Court of Appeals concluded that “under the tests set out in McCormick, plaintiff has not met the serious impairment threshold as a matter of law and, therefore, defendant is entitled to summary disposition.” In so holding, the court stated:
“In sum, plaintiff’s residual impairment from the accident did not prevent him from working at the same type of employment he held before the accident, and seemingly only prevented him from bowling, one of many hobbies in which he engaged prior to the accident. . . . A person’s normal life need not have been destroyed in order to have been affected, and there is no minimum percentage of a person’s life which must have been affected in order to determine that an impairment has had an effect on a person’s ability to lead his normal life. . . . However, in this case, the evidence indicates that plaintiff’s ability to bowl was his only activity that was affected in any significant manner by his residual impairment from the accident.”
The court, therefore, held that plaintiff did not meet the threshold requirements under MCL 500.3135(1). The court reversed the trial court refusal to grant summary disposition in favor of defendant, and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.
