Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262174; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Cavanagh, and Owens; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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 grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
Plaintiff, a retiree in early 80's, was injured when defendant struck his vehicle from behind. Plaintiff struck his head on the dashboard and the arm rest of his seat also struck his lower back. Plaintiff had pre-existing back problems which were exacerbated by the accident. Plaintiff’s treatment consisted of trigger pain injections for his lower back and an unsuccessful attempt at physical therapy. An MRI subsequent to the accident showed a “right paracentral disc herniation” at the same area of plaintiff’s earlier surgeries.
The Court of Appeals, in affirming the trial court grant of summary disposition, first determined that the plaintiff had sustained an objectively manifested injury of an important body function. Although the extent of the injuries caused by the accident were difficult to separate from plaintiff’s earlier extensive back injuries, the court noted that for purposes of this appeal, it considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The court, therefore, assumed plaintiff’s increased pain and movement restrictions were attributable to the accident.
However, the court concluded plaintiff had failed to show that his initial injuries, when coupled with any residual effects, changed his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff did not undergo surgery or wear a cast as the result of his injuries. Plaintiff did not continue to suffer the degree of long-term effects suffered by the plaintiff in Kreiner.
Plaintiff’s ongoing limitations were “minor.” The court noted plaintiff could “still drive, hunt, and perform at least some of the limited household chores he used to perform.” Although he could not any longer engage in his woodworking hobby, the court described this limitation as “self-imposed” and, therefore, not sufficient to establish a serious impairment of body function. Although plaintiff has lost some mobility and a degree of self-sufficiency, his lifestyle has not “appreciably changed.” Considered against the back drop of his pre-impairment life, plaintiff’s post-impairment life is not so different that his general ability to conduct the course of his normal life has been affected.
