Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #272059; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Fitzgerald, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 was a grandmother who sustained ill-defined back injuries for which she received chiropractic treatment and was restricted from walking for more than 10 minutes and from lifting more than 10 pounds. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals first noted that although plaintiff claimed her injury affected her ability to work as a cosmetologist, her tax returns indicated her income dropped the first year after the accident, but increased the second year after her accident. It then noted that although plaintiff claimed she could no longer ski, play softball, bowl, ballroom dance, ride a dune buggy, or engage in arts and crafts for an extended period of time, plaintiff failed to show her inability to engage in these occasional activities affected her ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Considering first plaintiff’s work activities, despite her deposition testimony indicating negative effects of her claimed impairment, tax return documents related to her part-time work as a cosmetologist reflect that her gross receipts (rounded to whole dollars) from her work dropped only from $8,417 in the year of the accident to $8,017 the following year, and then increased the next year to $9,193. . . . Accordingly, it cannot reasonably be concluded that plaintiff’s general ability to work was impacted in a way that is significant in terms of assessing the effect of her claimed impairment on her general ability to lead her normal life. . . . Plaintiff testified that before the accident she engaged in downhill skiing, baseball, bowling, ballroom dancing, arts and crafts, and riding a dune buggy in the sand. However, plaintiff indicated that she had not been on a baseball or softball league for years before the accident, and merely would like to be able to throw the baseball with her grandson. She also stated that she could not throw a baseball because it would be too painful, and would not downhill ski because she did not want to risk exacerbating her back condition. To the extent that plaintiff is complaining that her impairment precludes her from engaging in occasional recreational activities with her grandson such as playing catch with a baseball, this would not have been an important or regular enough a part of her life to have significant weight in terms of generally affecting her ability to lead her normal life. . . . Plaintiff also indicated that she had not gone bowling since the accident because of her concern about pain. She testified that she had tried ballroom dancing since the accident, but could not do it because it hurt. Plaintiff testified that she could not sit for prolonged periods to do crafts without aching, and that she could not lift rocks to paint them. Plaintiff indicated that she loved to golf, but had not tried to do so since the accident. However, these self-imposed restrictions were not required by plaintiff’s medical restrictions against lifting over ten pounds or walking over ten minutes. While plaintiff’s restrictions might limit her ability to partake of these hobbies, they would not preclude her from doing so. . . . Similarly, plaintiff’s claimed limitations in her ability to perform household tasks should be discounted because they are plainly not activities requiring one to lift over ten pounds or walk for more than ten minutes at a time.”