Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #273773; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Jansen, and Borrello; 2-1 (Judge Jansen dissenting); 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 ill-defined injuries to his left foot, ankle, and Achilles tendon for which he underwent surgery, was off work for approximately seven weeks, was under work restrictions for eight weeks, engaged in physical therapy for eight weeks, and wore a walking cast. In affirming, the Court of Appeals determined that although plaintiff claimed that ongoing pain rendered him unable to work, this was a self-imposed restriction and self-imposed restrictions do not establish a residual impairment. In this regard, the court stated:
“The evidence showed that plaintiff received no significant medical treatment for the first six months after he was injured. He used a walking cast between December 23, 2004, and January 13, 2005, underwent four weeks of physical therapy in January and February 2005, and was on work restrictions for eight weeks between December 2004 and February 2005. Plaintiff did not receive further medical treatment until December 2005, when his Achilles tendon was surgically debrided. Plaintiff was in a cast between December 19, 2005, and January 13, 2006, underwent four weeks of physical therapy in January and February 2006, and was disabled from working for seven weeks between December 2005 and February 2006. Although plaintiff testified that continuing pain left him unable to work because he could not walk or stand for prolonged periods of time, self-imposed restrictions based on real or perceived pain do not establish a residual impairment. . . . The trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life.”
