Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #271201; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Markey, and Wilder; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 reversed the trial court Order denying defendant summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained undefined injuries in the motor vehicle accident for which he was off work for five months and left him unable to lift more than 50 pounds, play basketball, or engage in weight lifting. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff was off work for five months, he was only restricted from work by a physician for several weeks and he had no additional physician-imposed restrictions. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff testified at deposition that he could no longer lift over 50 pounds, play basketball, or engage in weight lifting, but admitted that no physician had restricted him from any of those activities. Plaintiff additionally protests that he was unable to return to work until after five months after the accident. But the disability certificates in the record indicate that plaintiff was deemed totally disabled only from the time of the accident until several weeks later, and that thereafter he was only partially disabled, while making steady progress on his ability to lift, stand, and drive. . . . Because the record indicates that medically imposed restrictions diminished to nothing over a period of just five months, and concerned mostly partial disabilities relating to certain household chores, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to create a question of fact concerning whether the accident in question seriously affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for summary disposition on that ground.”
