Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #268302; Unpublished
Judges Davis, Sawyer, and Schuette; 2-1 (Judge Davis dissenting); 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case was a horseback riding instructor who sustained injuries from a motor vehicle accident to her neck and back and numbness in her left arm which resulted in radiculopathy, cervicalga, and facet syndrome. Her treatment, which she will require for the remainder of her life, consists of regular, multiple epidural steroidal injections into the cervical spine. She also received a number of rhizotomy procedures and has been treated with pain medication, muscle relaxants, and physical therapy. The plaintiff, an avid horsewoman from childhood and a professional riding instructor, must now instruct her students from the ground, limit her riding time, and is only able to ride certain horses. Moreover, she requires help with the farm chores and heavy lifting, as well as with her regular household duties, and must adapt the way she performs her chores, so as not to trigger neck pain. Furthermore, the plaintiff is unable to engage in other pre-accident recreational activities, such as mountain biking and swimming. In finding that plaintiff failed to show that her injuries changed her general ability to lead her normal life, the Court of Appeals reasoned that plaintiff’s treatment and ongoing limitations are not extensive. In addition, any limitations are self-imposed. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . plaintiff’s treatment regimen and reported ongoing limitations are not extensive. She receives injections to control her pain approximately once every four months. Plaintiff continues to work full time, and can perform her pre-accident house and yard work. She maintained that she had to adapt her way of performing chores and driving so as not to trigger neck pain, but can continue performing these activities. Plaintiff also admits that she assists with running the horse farm and gives riding lessons.
According to her husband’s testimony, plaintiff cannot fully participate in the heavier work involved in taking care of the horses and must limit her riding time. She has also lost the interest, if not the ability, to participate in strenuous sports, such as mountain biking. But as noted by the trial court, her claimed limitations appear entirely self-imposed and based on real or perceived pain rather than underlying physical incapacity.”
