Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #269410; Unpublished
Judges White, Zahra, and Kelly; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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 affirmed the trial court Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined injuries to her knees and back for which she took over-the-counter pain medication and engaged in “three rounds” of physical therapy. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that although the plaintiff missed some work due to physical therapy and no longer engaged in some recreational activities, such as camping, canoeing, and cross-country skiing, the plaintiff did not show that these restrictions were physician-imposed or that she was physically unable to engage in these activities. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“[P]laintiff did not offer evidence linking her decision not to engage in camping, canoeing, and cross-country skiing to a physician’s observation of limited movement or a physical incapability of performing some motion. She did not present evidence of any physician-imposed restrictions other than lifting. She did not specify the reason that she discontinued the activities. In the absence of physician-imposed restrictions or restrictions that are attributable to physical incapacity, the change in activities does not establish residual impairment.
We recognize that residual impairment is not essential to establishing a threshold injury. In fact, ‘an impairment of short duration may constitute a serious impairment of body function if its effect on the plaintiff’s life is extensive.’ Williams, supra, p 508. However, plaintiff did not show an impairment of a short duration that had an extensive effect on her life.”
