Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #252702; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Gage, and Murray; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 23, 2000. He sought medical treatment the same day and was informed he had sustained a fracture of the inferior left patella (his kneecap). He was placed on full work restriction, prescribed pain medication, and referred to an orthopedic specialist.
Plaintiff followed up with an orthopedic specialist who prescribed physical therapy for four (4) additional occasions. By July 11, 2000, the orthopedic physician informed the plaintiff the rehabilitation of his knee was complete and he could return to work, having regained a full range-of-motion. Plaintiff claimed that despite this, he continued to experience pain and limited use of his left knee after his last treatment with the orthopedist. He asserts his abilities to ambulate and to engage in recreational activities continued to be restricted by the knee injury.
In applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner, supra, to the facts of this case, the court held plaintiff had indeed sustained an impairment of an important function, namely ambulation. Further, the injuries were objectively manifested pursuant to x-rays of the plaintiff’s knee. However, the court found the injuries did not satisfy the requirement that the injuries affected the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life, as required under §3135(7).
Referring to the injuries described in the Kreiner, supra, decision, the court stated, “Like the plaintiffs discussed in Kreiner, plaintiff here was not able to work for a period following his injury, and is not able to fully engage in all pre-accident activities. However, the restrictions that plaintiff has suffered must be viewed as they affect the whole. Plaintiff has regained full range of mobility in his leg and the lasting effects suffered by plaintiff are considerably less than those suffered by the plaintiffs in Kreiner.” Consequently, the trial court grant of summary disposition was affirmed.
