Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264042; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Sawyer, and Meter; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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, a 13-year-old child, was riding in a school bus when it braked, suddenly causing her to be thrown forward and striking her head and shoulder on the seat in front of her. X-rays taken the same day revealed no spinal abnormalities. An MRI performed the next month revealed a mild disc bulge at C5-6, but no herniation in plaintiff’s thoracic spine. However, an orthopedic surgeon opined that the MRI showed evidence of disc herniation. The plaintiff wore a neck brace for three weeks, participated in physical therapy for one month, and was accommodated in various ways at school.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition, the Court of Appeals held that although there was a factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of the child’s injuries as to whether there was indeed a disc herniation, the trial court was correct in concluding that even if the child suffered injuries to an important body function as a result of the accident, defendant was still entitled to summary disposition, because no evidence created a question of fact as to whether the child’s injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Although plaintiff asserted her injuries prevented her from engaging in recreational activities with her friends, no evidence showed any physician placed any restrictions on her activities. Rather, the evidence showed her restrictions were self-imposed. Further, there was no evidence, as there was in McDanield v Hempker [RB #2611], that something other than pain prevented plaintiff from engaging in her recreational activities.
Therefore, the trial court grant of summary disposition was affirmed.
