United States District Court, Western District of Michigan; Case #1:04-CV-769; Written
Honorable Gordon J. Quist
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Opinion not available 
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 written opinion, Judge Quist interpreted the Michigan no-fault statute and the requirement of a serious impairment of body function in light of Kreiner and in so doing, denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, specifically finding plaintiff’s injuries did affect her ability to lead her normal life.
Plaintiff McMullen was involved in a rear-end collision on December 4, 2001 in Big Rapids, Michigan. She commenced treating with a chiropractor which proved unsuccessful, then saw her family doctor with complaints of lower back pain and pain radiating down to her groin and legs. Her family physician noted that an MRI scan showed “broad-based right paracentral disc protrusion L5-S1 with potential involvement of the right S1 nerve.” Her family physician recommended a conservative course of treatment which included physical therapy and spinal injections, together with pain medications. In the summer of 2004, plaintiff’s family physician treated her with epidural steroid injections and a facet arthrogram at L5, neither of which provided plaintiff with much relief. In October, 2004, plaintiff saw another doctor who performed a radiofrequency rhizotomy, involving the cutting of her anterior or posterior spinal nerve roots. In June, 2005, plaintiff saw a surgeon for consultation who performed a caudal epidural and bilateral sacral nerve blocks. Plaintiff continued to experience significant pain and at the time of the court’s opinion was considered a candidate for disc replacement or spinal fusion surgery. No physician specifically placed any restrictions or limitations on plaintiff’s employment or other activities because of her back condition.
In addressing the defendant’s motion for summary disposition under the Kreiner standards, the court relied upon the Michigan Court of Appeals published decision in McDanield v Hemker [RB #2611] in determining plaintiff did satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold requirements as delineated in Kreiner. In addressing defendant’s argument that many of plaintiff’s restrictions were “self-imposed” Judge Quist quoted from the decision in McDanield where that court stated:
“In many situations where there are physician-imposed restrictions based on pain, the instructions or limitations provided by the physician will be fairly open-ended, making reference to or being dependent on the level of pain experienced by the injured party when performing a particular task . . . in cases where there is evidence that the physician has pinpointed a physiological basis for the pain or believes that the patient is truly suffering pain, such evidence, while not conclusive, lends support to a conclusion that instructions by the physician constitute physician-imposed restrictions.”
Considering the factors in Kreiner, and in reliance upon the McDanield, supra, decision, Judge Quist held the evidence, as a whole, shows the impairment has affected plaintiff’s ability to lead her normal life.
