Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #272409; Unpublished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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained an ill-defined neck injury for which she received “more or less” continuous treatment. The plaintiff may require surgery for her injury, but that possibility is not certain. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the residual effects from plaintiff’s injury may be permanent, but her limitations are not extensive. Although plaintiff takes medication to help her sleep, uses a muscle stimulation device, does home exercises, and can only stand for long periods of time on soft surfaces, she works full-time, has resumed driving, and performs her pre-accident housework. And, even though plaintiff has not fully resumed participating in sports activities, she does not have a physician-imposed restriction. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“[P]laintiff’s residual effects may be, as she suggests, permanent. However, despite the affidavit from her treating physician, . . . plaintiff’s treatment regimen and reported ongoing limitations are not extensive. She apparently continues to take medication to help her sleep, uses her muscle stimulation device, and is supposed to continue with home exercise. Plaintiff continues to work full time, with only the minor limitation of standing on a soft surface to alleviate her pain. She is able to perform her pre-accident housework. She has resumed driving. While plaintiff has presented evidence that surgery might be needed in the future, this possibility remains speculative. . . . Plaintiff presented evidence that she has not returned to the level and intensity of physical activities she previously enjoyed, even though she again participates on a volleyball team. This factor weighs more heavily in plaintiff’s case given her active lifestyle. However, this is only one aspect of plaintiff’s life. In addition, as noted by the trial court, her claimed limitations appear to be self-imposed and based on real or perceived pain rather than on underlying physical incapacity. Her physician’s affidavit provides some support for a finding that plaintiff might be expected to limit her activities due to pain, but does not show that the limitations were physician-imposed. None of plaintiff’s treatment records supports a finding that he ever limited her activities. Plaintiff’s limitations thus cannot be used to establish a threshold injury.”
