Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #273691; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Talbot, and Schuette; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428], interpreting the statutory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 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, a high school student, sustained ill-defined neck and shoulder injuries for which she was prescribed a cervical collar, anti-inflammatory medication, and Tylenol. Within three months of the accident she was diagnosed with left rotator cuff tendonitis with impingement and multi-directional instability. Approximately nine months after the accident, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery from which she fully recovered.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that despite plaintiff’s injury, she continued to attend school and work, graduated from high school with honors, and enrolled in college which she attended full-time. Although plaintiff did not play on her high school fast pitch softball team or participate in recreational softball, plaintiff failed to show that this was particularly significant to her overall life. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“The trial court did not err in granting defendant summary disposition. Even immediately after the accident, plaintiff was ‘for the most part’ able to lead her normal life. She continued going to school and working. . . . She graduated from high school with honors and enrolled in college. At the time of her June 2006 deposition, she was working and attending college full-time. . . . She was unable to play softball her senior year in high school, but no evidence showed that this was particularly significant to her overall life. Her continued inability to play softball appears to relate more to her fear of re-injury than to a restriction.”
