Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #253467; Unpublished
Judges Hood, White, and O’Connell; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the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 plaintiffs’ claims for non-economic loss. Judge White concurred in the result.
With regard to the claim of Chong Yang, the court stated he failed to present evidence showing the injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. The record showed Yang denied having any injuries at the scene of the accident and refused emergency treatment. He testified in his deposition he did not remember missing any work, and he continued to work as a welder despite experiencing pain. He treated for four months with a chiropractor and with a neurologist on three occasions. Although the neurologist recommended physical therapy, there is no evidence in the record that shows Yang actually attended physical therapy. There was no evidence in the record of doctor-imposed restrictions. The fact his doctor signed an affidavit stating Yang’s injuries affected his general ability to lead a normal every day life, did not create an issue of fact. The further report of another doctor which indicated Yang had a dislocation of his left AC joint, torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder, and “possible” herniated discs of C4-C5 and L4-L4 was insufficient. The report of this doctor did not impose restrictions on Yang. The doctor’s reference to the “vague possibility” Yang might one day need surgery or have undefined problems doing manual labor was insufficient to create an issue of fact for trial.
Regarding Mong Moua’s injuries, the court likewise held her injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. Her primary restrictions were that she could not type at work as long as she could before the accident and her sleep was disturbed by discomfort. She missed only one week of work and two weeks of school. She treated with a chiropractor for four months and had only a few visits with a neurologist. The record was devoid of any doctor-imposed restrictions on her activities. As a consequence, the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant with regard to both of plaintiffs’ claims was affirmed.
