Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #272907; Unpublished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)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment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 defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case broke several bones in his non-dominant left hand. Plaintiff underwent two surgeries, was off of work for 13½ weeks, and was returned to unrestricted activity as “tolerated.” Due to the injury, plaintiff must now limit the amount of time he plays video games and bike rides. In addition, plaintiff claims he cannot pursue a career as a firefighter because, due to his wrist injury, he cannot crawl.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff remained under physician-imposed restrictions and that he could only engage in activity as tolerated, an objective view of his pre- and post-accident life does not show that his general ability to lead his normal life had been affected by the injury. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, the treating physician . . . directed that plaintiff use his wrist only ‘as tolerated.’ Thus, we conclude that, when viewed objectively and in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the record supports that plaintiff’s restrictions are physician-, rather than self-, imposed. Nonetheless, an objective view of plaintiff’s pre- and post-accident life does not support that his general ability to lead his normal life has been affected by his injury. The record contains evidence of three circumstances that have changed in plaintiff’s life: less video game playing, less bicycle riding, and a decision against pursuing a job as a firefighter. . . . We acknowledge that the accident and the resulting wrist pain have had negative effect on certain aspects of plaintiff’s life. Nonetheless, as the Court explained in Kreiner, ‘[a] negative effect on a particular aspect of an injured person’s life is not sufficient in itself to meet the tort threshold, as long as the injured person is still generally able to lead his normal life. . . . Here, plaintiff testified that the injury had a negative effect on a few recreational aspects of his life, and on one career trajectory. Nonetheless, plaintiff is able to continue working in his pre-accident job. Moreover, there is no definitive medical evidence that his injury has permanently foreclosed the option of an emergency services career. As such, the accident did not cause a serious impairment of body function within the meaning of the no-fault act. Summary disposition in favor of defendant was, therefore, proper.”
