Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262163; Unpublished
Judges Borrello, Bandstra, and Kelly; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
In this case, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and sustained a scalp laceration which required 14 staples. Thereafter, she consulted her family physician on several occasions over the ensuing months, complaining of migraine headaches, neck pain, back pain, and left shoulder pain. An MRI of plaintiff’s lumbar spine showed degenerative disc disease with a posterior radial tear and mild central disc protrusion. An MRI examination of her left shoulder showed a tear in her rotator cuff.
The Court of Appeals concluded plaintiff’s laceration and other conditions were objectively manifested and the ability to use the neck and back is an important body function. However, the court also noted her headaches, pain, and limited movement of her neck, shoulder, back, and legs existed both prior to and after the accident. The court also noted plaintiff’s employment activities were restricted for several years prior to the accident due to her psychological and physical problems, and plaintiff had been seeking a disability retirement prior to the accident.
The court stated that in this case, there was no evidence that showed plaintiff’s employment activities were restricted to a great extent after the accident. Her inability to do housework to the extent she had prior to the accident does not exceed the Kreiner limitations and she did not present evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether her injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Therefore, the trial court decision granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant was affirmed.
