Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261530; Unpublished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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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 reversed the trial court denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
Plaintiff was injured while a passenger in a motor vehicle. He complained of minor neck and back pain at the accident scene. Subsequent medical examination revealed he was suffering from serious back conditions ultimately leading to surgery. Plaintiff, however, had suffered back problems before the accident. His physician opined the accident likely exacerbated his pre-existing condition. Also before the accident, plaintiff was off of work because of stress, insomnia, and depression, and was diagnosed with recurrent major depressive disorder. He was terminated from his employment, but plaintiff acknowledged on deposition the accident was not a factor in his losing his job.
Plaintiff underwent back surgery, the need for which his surgeon attributed to the accident. Plaintiff testified on deposition the accident had left him with serious problems walking and sleeping, but the surgery had resolved the walking problem.
In reversing the trial court denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals held plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence that his injuries from the accident significantly exacerbated his physical condition, thus supporting the trial court conclusion there was “objective manifestation of a significant injury that related to an important bodily function.” However, the court concluded plaintiff had pointed to few limitations after he had recovered from his surgery, and there was abundant evidence the plaintiff had serious difficulty walking before the surgery. Plaintiff was under no medically imposed restrictions. “A comparison of the lingering injuries, and hindrances, of which plaintiff complains, with those found not to be actionable in Kreiner, supra, confirms that the trial court in this case was overly generous in finding an issue for trial concerning whether plaintiff’s injuries are affecting his ability to lead his normal life” In this case, plaintiff complains of “minor, self-imposed limitations on his normal activities, now that he has had successful surgery.” Therefore, the determination of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition is reversed and remanded.
