Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 320426; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, O'Connell, and Ronayne Krause; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff did not establish there was a genuine issue of material fact whether his chest and shoulder injury affected his general ability to lead his normal life within the meaning of MCL 500.3135.
Plaintiff in this case, Lucas, was struck from behind while stopped at a red light. Plaintiff went to the emergency room with complaints of pain in his left shoulder and chest. He was eventually diagnosed with "chronic pain and will continue to require palliative treatment." Prior to his accident, plaintiff had been previously diagnosed with "[l]umbar stenosis and spasms on the left lumbar musculature," which was brought on by an auto accident he was involved in several years prior, and exacerbated by a fall he suffered a few months prior to the subject accident, giving rise to the present action. However, Lucas testified at his deposition that after receiving physical therapy for those injuries, he was able to work and "do everything without any problem." The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, finding it significant that plaintiff “only suffered three days off work, had no doctor-imposed restrictions, and few if any self-imposed restrictions.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling after concluding as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to satisfy the general ability element. In so holding, the Court reasoned:
“The record before the trial court established that Lucas's injuries did not affect his ability to pursue his education or his ability to work two jobs. Lucas missed three days of work, returned to work without restrictions, and completed his degree. While the injury briefly limited Lucas's ability to drive, Lucas testified that he was able to continue this activity after his deep tissue massage therapy. Most importantly, there is no evidence in the record concerning what portion of Lucas's daily life was devoted to gardening, working out, and playing soccer with his son, how long these limitations persisted after the accident, or if they even continued to exist after his massage therapy. While we agree that a diminishment in Lucas's recreational activities could support a finding that the injury affected Lucas's ability to lead his daily life, Lucas simply did not meet his burden to establish that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the injury affected his normal manner of living. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that Lucas did not establish that his injury affected his general ability to lead his daily life.”
