Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #267553; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Saad, and Schuette; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of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 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 shoulder, neck, and back for which he received six to eight months of physical therapy and took medication for pain.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that although the plaintiff’s physician’s records indicated plaintiff was disabled for four weeks, when he was discharged from physical therapy, his prognosis was listed as “good” and he was functionally independent. Moreover, plaintiff’s inability to perform household chores, wash his hair, play cards, and engage in other unspecified hobbies was based upon self-imposed rather than physician-imposed restrictions. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Medical records and other evidence supporting Fouad Nakhle’s claims of pain, and his resulting inability to perform household chores, to play cards, to engage in other unspecified ‘hobbies,’ and (sometimes) to wash his head without assistance, do not support a finding that the ‘trajectory’ of his normal life has been affected. Indeed, the evidence establishes that his life following the 2002 accident has continued in quite the same manner as it did for the previous thirteen years. Moreover, each of these limitations has been self imposed by Fouad Nakhle based on real or perceived pain, rather than imposed by a physician; thus, this evidence may not be used to establish the extent of plaintiff’s residual impairment. In short, ‘[c]onsidered against the backdrop of his preimpairment life,’ Fouad Nakhle’s ‘postimpairment life is not so different that his “general ability” to lead his normal life has been affected.’”
