Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #272640; Unpublished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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined injuries for which she was prescribed pain medication and a muscle relaxant. Due to her injuries, plaintiff was unable to return to work and engage in recreational activities such as dancing, shopping, and skating. In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that although some of plaintiff’s restrictions were self-imposed, her doctor advised her to refrain from activities that required lifting, bending, stooping, prolonged standing or sitting, and she was off work for more than 17 months. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff has had minimal treatment consisting primarily of the prescription of medication. The impairment has not been resolved, resulting in plaintiff being medically restricted from returning to work for 17 months and, according to one doctor, plaintiff’s prognosis for recovery is poor. While the limitations on plaintiff’s social activities appear to be self-imposed, another doctor advised against lifting, bending, stooping, and prolonged sitting or standing. We conclude that such evidence was sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injury affected her general ability to lead her normal life. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion.”
