Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261237; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Gage, and Wilder; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 reversed the trial court denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
Plaintiff was injured in two successive motor vehicles, the first in January, 2002 and the second in April of the same year. The first accident resulted in a “lower back injury” for which plaintiff was prescribed physician supervised physical therapy. The second motor vehicle accident, the subject of this case, resulted in plaintiff being transported to a local hospital where she complained of pain in her right hip and leg. She was released later the same day after x-rays of her hip and pelvic region disclosed no evidence of any abnormality.
Two weeks later, plaintiff resumed physical therapy following an increase in her lower back pain. Her treating physician diagnosed her as suffering from “lumbar strain with likely right lumbrosacral radiculopathy” which her doctor concluded had been “aggravated” by the April, 2002 motor vehicle accident. Subsequent MRI imaging revealed the lumbrosacral spine to be in tact and disclosed no evidence of any abnormality. Plaintiff was discharged from physical therapy in August, 2002.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the serious impairment threshold issue, reasoning “any time you are talking about an aggravation there is a material dispute.” However, the Court of Appeals, in reversing the trial court, determined the evidence does not support that any such aggravation, even if found to exist, affected plaintiff’s “general ability to lead her normal life.”
The court indicated, “the evidence shows that the impairment at issue stemmed from the aggravation of a previously incurred lumbar sprain requiring approximately three months of physical therapy, during which plaintiff was restricted from full-time work.” Further, “upon completion of physical therapy, plaintiff exhibited no physical sign of lumbrosacral abnormalities and was not medically restricted from working or participating in any of the activities enjoyed by her before the accidents, such as biking, rollerblading, and recreational walking.”
The court also noted that after the results of the MRI, plaintiff’s doctor declined to place plaintiff on disability or restrictive status or to prescribe her pain medications. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court of Appeals concluded plaintiff’s impairment did not affect her general ability to conduct the course of her normal life and, accordingly, did not satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold.
