Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261947; Unpublished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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the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’s injury consisted of a knee injury for which plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery approximately one month following the accident. The surgery included removal of a portion of a torn lateral meniscus and a bone chip. In addressing whether the injury satisfied the serious impairment threshold requirements as interpreted by Kreiner, the Court stated:
“Plaintiff could bear weight on his knee after the surgery, participated in physical therapy, and rehabilitated himself back to the ability to perform his normal activities of police duty. Plaintiff was not in a wheelchair for any period, and he did not use crutches. In May 2003, plaintiff returned to work as a patrol officer with no restrictions. Plaintiff’s surgeon placed no restrictions on plaintiff’s recreational or work activities, which included running. Upon his return to work, plaintiff did not experience any difficulties in the performance of his duty. In August or September 2003, plaintiff returned to playing basketball twice per week, coaching his sons’ little league basketball games, and using a StairMaster exercise machine at home. Plaintiff’s surgeon opined that he ‘is going to be able to continue doing what he’s doing,’ but he ‘may require further treatment down the line’ and ‘may eventually have to stop being a patrol officer.’”
The Court of Appeals held plaintiff has been generally able to lead his normal life because of the limited extent of the impairment of his work and recreational activities, his good prognosis, and relatively limited residual impairment. Therefore, the trial court decision granting summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment was affirmed.
