Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #271247; Unpublished
Judges Meter, O’Connell, and Davis; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a TBI and was diagnosed with a left temporal arachnoid cyst, cervical degenerative disc disease, and foraminal stenosis. These injuries caused cognitive deficits, including difficulty with attention, concentration, memory, motor function, and emotional and behavioral problems. In addition, plaintiff suffered from chronic neck and shoulder pain.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff failed to provide testimony in the form of an affidavit or otherwise from a physician who regularly diagnoses closed-head injuries, that plaintiff sustained a serious neurological injury. Moreover, plaintiff failed to provide evidence that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Although plaintiff was disabled from his employment before the accident, he had no physician-imposed restrictions and, although he claimed his pain prevented him from engaging in various activities, the restrictions were self-imposed. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff claims that he suffered a closed-head injury as a result of the accident; however, he did not provide testimony, in the form of an affidavit or otherwise, from a physician who regularly diagnoses closed-head injuries to the effect that plaintiff might have sustained a serious neurological injury. . . . Furthermore, no evidence created a question of fact regarding whether any injury plaintiff sustained in the accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff was disabled from his employment before the accident. He offered no specifics regarding how his daily life changed after the accident occurred. No physician placed any restrictions on plaintiff’s activities following the accident. Plaintiff asserted that pain he experienced prevented him from engaging in various activities; however, self-imposed restrictions, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, based on real or perceived pain, do not establish the existence of a residual impairment.”
