Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #272336; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Fitzgerald, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for Serious Impairment of Body Function Threshold (Definition) [3135(1)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 reversed the trial court Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses and remanded for further proceedings.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a severe disc injury to her lumbosacral spine for which she received physical therapy, pain relief injections, and underwent surgery. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff was off work for four months and was unable to take care of her children, perform household chores, and take care of herself for eight months. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence indicated that plaintiff suffered a serious injury to her back. When physical therapy and pain-relief injections failed to help, she underwent surgical intervention. She was completely disabled from doing housework or from attending to her children or to her personal needs for the first eight months of 2003, and off work between June 10 and October 5, 2003. Because ‘an impairment of short duration may constitute a serious impairment of body function if its effect on the plaintiff’s life is extensive,’. . . we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to create an issue of fact whether plaintiff’s injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion.”
