Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274415; Unpublished
Judges White, Saad, and Murray; 2-1 (Judge White 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428] interpreting the statutory definition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 69-year-old plaintiff in this case suffered a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder, as well as ill-defined injuries to both of his knees, left arm, and right hand. Plaintiff received treatment from an orthopedist and physical therapy. Although recommended, plaintiff did not undergo surgical repair of his rotator cuff because he was not a good surgical candidate. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff claimed the injury to his shoulder prevented him from doing yard work, playing pool, and sometimes dressing himself and taking a shower. However, the court noted that plaintiff did not have any physician-imposed restrictions and although the shoulder injury presented some inconvenience for plaintiff, the limitations he experienced did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“In this case, plaintiff suffered several injuries to his knees, hands, left shoulder, and neck. Plaintiff essentially testified that after physical therapy, draining of fluid, and some pain medication, the injuries to his knees, hands, and neck did not affect his ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff complained however, that the injury to his left shoulder prevented him from doing ‘quite a few things’ and ‘[j]ust about anything that took any strength,’ such as picking up things, yard work, shooting pool, and sometimes dressing himself and taking a shower. While presenting some inconvenience for plaintiff, none of these limitations affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Moreover, in the absence of a physician’s written restriction, all these limitations appear to be self-imposed because of plaintiff’s experience of pain. Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff has not met the serious impairment of body function threshold, and the circuit court did not err in granting summary disposition to defendant.”
