Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261467; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Cavanagh, and Owens; unanimous; memorandum
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished memorandum opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in August, 2002. The injury limited his movement and was painful and interrupted his sleep. An MRI revealed a torn rotator cuff. The tear was surgically repaired in December, 2002 and with physical therapy, plaintiff regained full range-of-motion within two months. Plaintiff had some residual weakness but also improved after another two months of therapy. Plaintiff missed only three weeks of work. As a result of residual weakness, plaintiff could not engage in certain upper body exercises, could not carry luggage or do construction work on his annual or semi-annual mission trips, and could not do some maintenance work at home and at church.
The Court of Appeals held that given plaintiff’s injury “was not extensive and was repaired with surgery, that his recuperation was short and unremarkable, and that the effect of the injury on his body function was not pervasive and caused only minor disruption of his activities,” the trial court did not err in concluding the injury was not serious.
