Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #289981; Unpublished
Judges Davis, Donofrio, and Stephens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective manifestation element of serious impairment [3135(7)]
Important body function element of serious impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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 Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages.
Plaintiff alleged that she sustained aggravated injuries to her neck and back from the motor vehicle accident at issue. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly found that her injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life when, due to her doctor-imposed restrictions, she had to give up a career that she had planned in early childhood development. Nevertheless, the court noted that plaintiff failed to address the trial court’s determination that plaintiff failed to show that she suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that her injury did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life when, due to restrictions imposed by her doctor, she gave up a planned career in early childhood development. Although the trial court ruled that plaintiff’s injury had not affected her general ability to lead her normal life, it also ruled that plaintiff had not suffered an objectively manifested impairment, as opposed to an injury, of an important body function. Plaintiff does not address this aspect of the trial court’s decision. Because an appellant is obligated to address the basis of the trial court’s ruling to obtain relief, Derderian v Genesis Health Care Sys, 263 Mich App 364, 381; 689 NW2d 145 (2004), and plaintiff has not addressed this aspect of the trial court’s ruling, an issue that must necessarily be reached to reverse the trial court, plaintiff has not established a right to relief.”
