Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263928; Unpublished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:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
In this claim for uninsured motorist benefits against Lumbermans Insurance, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that Plaintiff’s foot injury, although objectively manifested, and involving an important body function, did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. The evidence established plaintiff underwent a two month period of recuperation from his injury, during which time he was unable to work, relied on his mother to drive him, prepare his food, make his bed, and occasionally help him to the bathroom door. The court felt this level of impairment for this period of time was insufficient to show an extensive effect on plaintiff’s life as required in Williams v Medukas, 266 Mich App 505 (2005). Although plaintiff described continuing discomfort in his foot caused him to limp and claimed changes in his recreational and social activities, the evidence did not establish these activities were important in his life before the accident. Additionally, there was no evidence of physician-imposed restrictions. The court stated, “Considering the lack of physical incapacity and the lack of physician-imposed restrictions relative to pain and the extent of the residual impairment, along with viewing the totality of the circumstances, we find that plaintiff has failed to show that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life, as is necessary to establish a serious impairment of body function under §3135(1).”
