Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263421; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Saad, 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claims for non-economic loss.
Plaintiff, a 65-year-old woman, was injured on October 20, 2001 in a motor vehicle accident. She claimed she injured her right shoulder, neck, and lower back. Plaintiff had a number of medical problems preceding the accident for which she received Social Security Disability benefits, including fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, hypertension, diabetes, and lower back pain due to a herniated disc. She also sustained injuries to her right shoulder when she fell down a flight of stairs two months before this accident. Her treatment following the automobile accident was for her pain in her right shoulder, right elbow, and wrist, and consisted of 12 weeks of physical therapy and prescribed pain medication. She claimed that after the first accident she could no longer sew, engage in making crafts, go to the movies, visit her grandchildren, cook, or wash dishes. She stated it took approximately a year before she felt she could resume these activities. No physician recommended surgery, and she was not placed on any activity restrictions by her doctors.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition on the serious impairment issue, the Court of Appeals noted first that the actual extent of the injuries caused by the accident was difficult to separate from her earlier injuries and physical infirmities. For purposes of the appeal, the court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and assumed plaintiff’s increased pain and movement restrictions were attributable to the accident.
Plaintiff arguably has shown she suffered an objectively manifested injury of an important body function. However, the court held plaintiff had failed to show her initial injuries, when coupled with any residual effects, changed her general ability to lead her normal life under the standards set forth in Kreiner. Plaintiff was able to participate in many of her pre-accident activities within one year after the accident, and admitted she had made a good recovery. Further, her reported inability to engage in her usual activities in the months following the accident appeared to be “entirely due to self-imposed limitations based on pain.” The court held these limitations did not establish a threshold injury and plaintiff had failed to establish any impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
