Mumladze v Doerr; (COA-UNP, 2/23/2010, RB #3116)

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #285152; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, O’Connell, and Davis; unanimous; per curiam
Link to Opinion

CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428], and affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendant following a trial in which the jury determined that plaintiff had not suffered an injury.

The plaintiff in this case sustained an ill-defined back injury for which she sought economic damages.  In affirming the trial court judgment, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff claimed she could no longer work, had difficulty sleeping, and that her pain affected her ability to perform her every day activities, the court noted that the evidence revealed that she could walk up the stairs to access her home and she often helped prepare meals.  In addition, the court found that although she complained of pain on a daily basis, she acknowledged that pain medication relieved some of the pain.  In addition, although her pain management doctor testified that she should limit her lifting to 20 pounds or less, he stated that this recommendation was not the result of testing and he had never listed such a restriction in her medical chart.  Moreover, the court noted that none of plaintiff’s doctors testified that they restricted plaintiff’s work.  Therefore, the court stated, because plaintiff had only demonstrated self-imposed restrictions and restrictions that were not based on objective testing, the jury conclusion that she failed to show that the course of her normal life had been affected would not constitute a miscarriage of justice.  In this regard, the court stated:

“Plaintiff claims that she meets the threshold injury requirement because she can no longer work, she has difficulty sleeping, and her pain affects her ability to perform everyday activities.  However, plaintiff’s testimony reveals that she is able to walk up the stairs to access her home, and she often helps prepare meals.  In addition, although she complains of daily pain, she also acknowledges that taking painkillers relieves some of the pain.  Also, while her pain management doctor testified that she should limit herself to lifting 20 pounds or less, he conceded that this recommendation was not the result of testing and that he had never listed such restrictions in plaintiff’s chart.  Further, none of plaintiff’s doctors testified that they imposed work restrictions on plaintiff.  Because plaintiff has only been able to demonstrate self-imposed restrictions and restrictions imposed that were not based on objective tests and were never noted in her medical chart, a jury’s conclusion that she has failed to demonstrate that the course of her overall life has been affected by her alleged injury would not constitute a miscarriage of justice.”