Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263196; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Cavanagh, and Fort Hood; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 defendants on plaintiffs’ claim for non-economic loss.
Plaintiff James Sroufe sustained injuries in the automobile accident consisting of a shoulder injury (described as a dislocation), as well as injuries requiring treatment for a heart condition and vertigo. However, James had suffered a shoulder injury and heart problems before the accident. Plaintiff Catherine Sroufe did not receive extensive medical treatment following the accident, but complained of conditions she had before the accident. After the Supreme Court decision in Kreiner, plaintiff Catherine Sroufe offered to voluntarily dismiss her claims.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition as to James’ claims, the Court of Appeals held his previous heart and shoulder conditions were present before the accident and did not impact his general ability to lead his life following the accident. The vertigo was reportedly resolved in four weeks, although driving restrictions continued. Plaintiff did not present objective, documentary evidence, of a recurrence of the vertigo such that additional treatment or driving restrictions were required. Therefore, the criteria set forth in Kreiner, supra, for recovery of non-economic damages was not satisfied. Further, the court held the dislocation of the shoulder does not satisfy the standard for serious permanent disfigurement.
The court did, however, reverse the trial court grant of sanctions in favor of the defendant on plaintiff Catherine Sroufe’s claims. The court noted that after the Kreiner decision was released, plaintiffs decided her claim would not be pursued and voluntarily sought dismissal. Under these circumstances, sanctions were not warranted.
