Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #256055; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Sawyer, and Murphy; 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)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
Closed Head Injury Question of Fact [3135(2)(a)(ii)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the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, holding plaintiff had failed to suffer from either a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement.
Plaintiff claimed injuries that included neck and back pain, a closed head injury, and depression as a result of an automobile accident. Plaintiff did not show, however, the injuries had affected his “general ability to lead his normal life” under the definition of the phrase as set forth in Kreiner. He missed three weeks of work after the accident. He had no medical restrictions keeping him from working. Although he indicated he was unable to perform household activities and some recreational activities for about a year after the accident, and a decline in intimate relations with his wife, Plaintiff did not have any medical restrictions preventing him from doing these activities, but rather these restrictions were “self-imposed.”
When viewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court of Appeals held the claimed impairment had not affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. The court also held plaintiff had not submitted sufficient documentary evidence showing the course or trajectory of his normal life was affected by his injuries.
With regard to the claim of permanent serious disfigurement, the court noted “The scar is small, testimony indicated about four centimeters, and near the top of plaintiff’s forehead. It is slightly darker than the surrounding skin, and there is a slight indentation in the skin. However, the scar is not a serious disfigurement.”
The trial court also rejected plaintiff’s argument he suffered from a serious neurological injury under §3135(2)(a)(ii) based upon an affidavit from a Dr. Turner. However, the Court of Appeals held this affidavit was not filed until plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and the trial court did not err in declining to reconsider its grant of summary disposition based upon that affidavit.
