Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261797; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Markey, and Talbot; 2-1 (Judge Talbot 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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’s determination that plaintiff’s injury had affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined back and neck injuries which are not expected to heal without surgery. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff can still perform many of the activities in which she engaged before the accident, doing so leaves her incapacitated for several days due to pain and inflammation. Moreover, the court recognized that plaintiff is unable to lift heavy objects, cannot work in her yard, cannot exercise, cannot drive extended distances, cannot sit for extended periods of time, and cannot walk for extended periods. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“However, plaintiff averred that while she can still do many of the activities she did prior to the accident (e.g., ‘driving, walking, working, cleaning, shopping’), she also indicated that she does them with less frequency and that ‘[o]n several occasions, [she has] . . . been incapacitated for several days after engaging in the . . . activities due to pain and inflammation.’ Plaintiff also averred that she is ‘unable to lift heavy objects, . . . cannot work in the yard, . . . cannot exercise, . . . cannot drive extended distances (more than 30 miles), . . . cannot sit for extended periods of time, and . . . cannot walk for extended periods/lengths.’ These restrictions are a significant alteration in her lifestyle. And plaintiff’s assertion that she is often incapacitated after such activities indicates more than a self-imposed restriction. Moreover, the duration of plaintiff’s disability is a factor that weighs in favor of finding that her pre-accident life has been significantly altered. Plaintiff is not expected to heal from her injuries, nor is she expected to have any long-term relief from them unless she has corrective surgery. . . . Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting partial summary disposition to plaintiff.”
