Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #270133; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Bandstra, and Owens; 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)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined injuries to his back and neck for which he underwent surgery on his cervical spine and engaged in physical therapy for two months. Due to his injuries, plaintiff was unable to perform household chores for about two months and was off of work for six months. When he returned to work, he could no longer operate a standing press. However, he was able to operate a sitting press. In addition, plaintiff claimed he could no longer engage in certain recreational activities and the frequency of his sexual intimacy had decreased.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted plaintiff offered no evidence of a physician-imposed restriction or that he was physically incapable of performing those activities. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“The impairment kept plaintiff from performing household chores for approximately two months and required him to miss work from March to May, and September to early December 2004. Plaintiff’s work duties changed from operating a standing press to a sitting one, but he was still employed full time by the same employer. Plaintiff indicated that he no longer engaged in certain recreational activities and the frequency of his sexual intimacy had decreased, but he did not show that he was restricted from these activities by a physician. . . . A self-imposed restriction may be considered where it is not based on pain but rather because the plaintiff is physically incapable of performing the activity. . . . Here, however, plaintiff did not offer evidence linking his decision not to engage in the activities to a physician’s observation of limited movement or a physical incapability of performing some motion. In the absence of physician-imposed restrictions or restrictions that are attributable to physical incapacity, the change in activities do not establish residual impairment.”
