Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262607; Unpublished
Judges Gage, Hoekstra, and Murray; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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.
Plaintiff was involved in an accident on August 15, 2002. Medical tests indicated she had a disc bulge at C5-C6 and to a lesser extent at C4-C5 and C6-C7. A consultation report from a pain institute also noted pain secondary to the automobile accident, primarily in the left distribution of C7 and in the left leg and in the distribution of L4. Plaintiff was on medical leave for approximately 45 days after the accident and was able to return to work on September 30, 2002. Plaintiff received physical therapy shortly after the accident and after September 30, 2002, there were no medical work restrictions in plaintiff’s medical file.
Plaintiff claimed she was unable to sit through her children’s sporting events due to the pain and could no longer volunteer at the football concession stand. She also claimed her husband divorced her after the accident, because she was unable to maintain a physical relationship with him due to the pain.
In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, the Court of Appeals held the evidence showed plaintiff “was able to fully return to work, albeit with pain but without medical restriction, 45 days after the accident. Her doctor indicated she was doing well, and the initial physical therapy notes indicated progress and improvement. There were no continued medical restrictions concerning her work, and there were no indications that plaintiff’s ability to perform her daily required routines, such as dressing and bathing were impaired.”
Comparing plaintiff’s life before and after the accident and the significance of the affected aspects of her life, the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
