Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261443; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Hoekstra, and Markey; 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)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [3135(1)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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.
This case involved a claim for injuries which plaintiff claimed met the serious impairment of body function threshold and the permanent serious disfigurement threshold.
Plaintiff’s injuries were described in the record as a “rib injury” and a discernable scar about 1.5 cm long on the tip of his nose.
Concerning the rib injury, plaintiff testified there were recreational activities he could no longer perform, such as tennis, basketball, and running. He also reported he could not do heavy work around his house. Two months after the accident, plaintiff returned to the same job he held before the accident, without restrictions. Although his job requires lifting over 15 pounds, plaintiff has not missed any work because of his injuries. He did not hire anyone to do any chores around his house. He never sought physical therapy and did not present evidence he continued to take any medication.
In analyzing this case under the Kreiner standards, the Court of Appeals held that although plaintiff’s injuries were not contested on the issue of objective manifestation of an impairment of an important body function, here plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the requirement the injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that because he is deaf, and his social outlets are limited, that the loss of sports and other recreational interactions affected him more profoundly than such losses would affect a hearing person. Although the Kreiner court did state,“Specific activities should be determined with an understanding that not all activities have the same significance in a person’s overall life,” the court here noted that although plaintiff claimed some of his recreational activities were limited, he still was able to bicycle, work full time, and all of his restrictions were self-imposed. Therefore, he did not meet the requirement of the serious impairment of body function threshold.
Plaintiff also claimed the scar on his face stemming from the accident satisfied the permanent serious disfigurement requirement of §3135(1). The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant on this issue after having viewed photographs of plaintiff’s scar which revealed a discernable scar about 1.5 cm long on the tip of the plaintiff’s nose above the right nostril somewhat darker than the surrounding skin. Plaintiff had not sought cosmetic surgery to correct the scar.
Based upon the photographs and plaintiff’s “apparent lack of serious emotional impact from the scar,” the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that the scar did not satisfy the serious permanent disfigurement provisions of the statute.
