Court of Appeals; Docket #306347; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Fort Hood, and Shapiro; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion:
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion regarding plaintiff’s threshold claims for noneconomic loss, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts grant of summary disposition in defendants’ favor on the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a threshold injury of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff in this case sustained an injury the Court described as a fracture of her non-dominant wrist that was immobilized for less than two months. In affirming summary disposition in favor of defendants, the Court held that plaintiff had failed to establish with any evidence that her ability to lead her normal life was affected by her injury. Apparently, plaintiff had some sort of hearing impairment that required the use of hearing aids. Plaintiff testified that because of her wrist injury, her ability to use sign language was affected during her recovery. However, with regard to this impairment, the Court noted that plaintiff “did not present evidence that use of sign language was part of her normal life.” Plaintiff also contended that her ability to perform household chores had been significantly affected by the injury to her non-dominant hand, but the Court again noted that “she did not present evidence to support this claim. She testified only that her mother and husband assisted her in unspecified ways for a short period after the accident and did not present any evidence describing her homemaking activities before the accident, how the injury affected her activities, and for what period of time. Lastly, plaintiff asserts that she could not hold her baby during the period in which her wrist was casted. In her deposition, however, she made no such assertion and testified that even when casted she was able to feed the baby and change its diaper. In her brief, plaintiff asserts that she wanted to go back to work, and she claims that her ability to perform jobs with lifting has been affected. Again, however, plaintiff did not present any testimony or evidence to support these assertions. Plaintiff also asserts that her ability to participate in certain physical recreational activities has been affected, but she similarly did not present any evidence to support that her ability to perform such activities is limited or that these activities were part of her normal life. The evidence established that plaintiff fractured her non-dominant wrist and that it was immobilized for less than two months, but no evidence was presented to demonstrate that plaintiff’s ability to lead her normal life was significantly altered even during this two month period, let alone therefore. The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition.”
