Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #268929; Unpublished
Judges Borrello, Jansen, and Cooper; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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 reversed the trial court’s Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case suffered multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident which included a stable fracture of the spine at C7. Plaintiff, a construction worker, was off work for approximately six months. During that time, he was treated with medication, wore a cervical collar, and engaged in physical therapy. While off work, plaintiff was unable to hunt, snowmobile, play softball, do yard work, and take walks with his girlfriend. In addition, plaintiff was unable to drive for three months, did not have intimate relations with his girlfriend for two months, and had difficulty feeding and dressing himself for two months. Plaintiff also needed help for several months from his mother and girlfriend to get his son off to school in the mornings.
In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff’s injuries did not cause a “minor interruption.” Plaintiff’s entire life was put on hold for the two months after the accident and gradually returned to normal over the next four months. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals held that where an injury entirely disrupts a person’s ability to lead his normal life, the fact the person recovers does not preclude recovery. In this regard, the court stated:
“We find that the facts of this case present more than a ‘minor interruption’ in plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life was put entirely on hold for the first two months after the accident, and returned only gradually over the following four months. Plaintiff’s lifestyle before the injury was dramatically different from his lifestyle for the six months after the accident. Following the Kreiner Court’s dictate that an injury need not be permanent to constitute a serious impairment, we hold that where, as here, an injury entirely disrupts a person’s ability to lead his normal life, the fact that the person eventually recovers does not preclude recovery for that injury. To hold otherwise would disregard the Court’s direction to consider such factors as the duration of the disability, comparative lifestyle before and after the injury, length of treatment, and other factors that suggest permanence is not dispositive. The totality of the circumstances of this case support plaintiff’s contention that he should recover damages for the time period when his ability to lead his normal life was entirely disrupted.”
