Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #269249; Unpublished
Judges White, Zahra, and Kelly; 2-1 (Judge Zahra dissenting); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained injuries to her lower back consisting of a left lateral annular tear with disc protrusion at the L3-L4 level, a left lateral disc protrusion at the L4-L5 level, degenerative disc disease at both levels, and arthrosis at the L5-S1 level. Over an 18-month period, plaintiff was restricted from work, as well as from bending, twisting, and lifting. She also participated in physical therapy, received pain injections, and underwent facet rhizotomy procedures. After this conservative treatment proved unsuccessful, plaintiff underwent intradiscal electrothermal therapy. Nine months later, plaintiff underwent an anterior lumbar discectomy at the L4-L5 level and was placed in a lumbar brace which she was required to wear for three months.
In finding that plaintiff’s course and trajectory of her normal life had been affected, the Court of Appeals noted that before the accident, plaintiff worked full-time, performed typical household duties, volunteered at her church, taught Sunday school, participated in a parent-teacher organization, was a room mother and a Girl Scout troop leader, and worked out at the “Y” where she swam and lifted weights. Although the court noted that after the accident, but before her discectomy surgery, plaintiff was able to do light housekeeping, laundry, run errands, and shop, she was no longer able to volunteer at her church, teach Sunday school, act as a Girl Scout troop leader, or help as a room mother. While recovering from her discectomy surgery, the court noted Plaintiff was unable to get dressed by herself, do any household chores, or run any errands because of restrictions on lifting and bending. Moreover, plaintiff did not return to work because of the pain in her lower back. In this regard, the court stated:
“Before the accident, plaintiff worked full time at a radio station for several years and then at a real estate office. In addition to working full time, plaintiff performed typical household duties, volunteered at her church, taught Sunday school, participated in the parent-teacher organization, was a room mother for her children’s classes and a Girl Scout troop leader, and worked out at ‘the Y’ where she swam and lifted weights. . . . After the accident, but before the discectomy, she was able to do light housekeeping, laundry, run errands and shop, although she had other people lift the heavy items, such as groceries and laundry baskets. Plaintiff no longer volunteered at her church, taught Sunday school, was a Girl Scout troop leader, participated as a ‘room mom’ at her children’s school, or worked on the Christmas play because she could not be relied on if she felt that the pain was too great. While recovering from her discectomy, plaintiff was unable to do any household chores or errands because of restrictions on lifting and bending and needed help getting dressed. Plaintiff did not return to work because of the pain in her lower back but intends to do so when it heals from the discectomy. . . . Based on the record, plaintiff has shown that she had an objectively manifested medical injury to an important body function and that she experienced repetitive restrictions over the course of her three year medical treatment. Moreover, plaintiff has shown that her injuries forced her to change the course of her life after the accident. Thus, we conclude that plaintiff has shown that the ‘course and trajectory’ of her normal life has been affected. The trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendants.”
