Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274128; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Fitzgerald, and Owens; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained linear tears to the posterior horn of the medical meniscus and to the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus for which he underwent two arthroscopic surgeries. Despite surgery, plaintiff continued to complain of pain in his left knee. In addition, plaintiff began to complain of pain in his left hip. On appeal, plaintiff first claims that a question of fact exists regarding whether his hip injury was proximately caused by the motor vehicle accident. He also argues that the trial court improperly dismissed his cause of action because his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that although there was a question of fact regarding the nature and extent of the knee and hip injuries, and whether the hip injury was proximately caused by the accident, the trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition because plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
In so ruling, the Court of Appeals noted that at the time of the accident plaintiff was unemployed and received disability benefits. In addition, plaintiff’s injuries have not affected his ability to bathe, groom, dress himself without assistance, perform household chores, or mow his lawn. Further, although plaintiff’s physician recommended that plaintiff engage in weight reduction, this was not a restriction–it was a suggestion that plaintiff lose weight. Moreover, plaintiff’s claimed inability to bowl, hunt, fish, engage in frequent sexual activity, and motorcycle ride, were self-imposed. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff’s life was not generally affected by the alleged injuries to his hip and knee. Plaintiff was unemployed and received disability benefits for some time before the accident, . . . Plaintiff’s alleged injuries have not affected his ability to bathe, groom, and dress himself without assistance, to perform household chores, or even to mow his lawn. . . . Plaintiff primarily argues that his knee and hip injuries have affected his ability to lead his normal life because he can no longer hunt deer or turkey, bowl, fish, ride his motorcycle, engage in pain-free sexual intercourse, or move without pain. However, plaintiff provides no documentation indicating that medical restrictions were placed on him to prevent him from participating in these or any other activities. Plaintiff claims that his physicians instructed him on March 23, 2005, to ‘diminish his weight bearing’ and argues that this constitutes ‘a physician imposed restriction because [plaintiff’s physician] had a psychological basis upon which to conclude Plaintiff-Appellant was suffering from real pain.’. . . ‘We are going to see him back on an as-needed basis.’ We do not believe that this statement indicates that plaintiff was under a physician-imposed restriction limiting him from carrying more than a certain amount of weight. Instead, this statement merely indicates that plaintiff’s physician planned to treat plaintiff’s knee by helping him strengthen his left leg and by encouraging him to lose some weight.”
