Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 311572; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Hoekstra and Gleicher; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEX:
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(5)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era:1996-2010) [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEX:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals Affirmed summary disposition for defendant because the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that their claimed injuries affected their abilities to lead their normal lives.
The plaintiffs in this case, Trimble and Brewer, were struck from behind by defendant's vehicle. The court did not describe the nature of their injuries in detail, but noted that they allegedly suffered “neck pain and . . . neck and lower back pain,” respectively. Id. Both plaintiffs also suffered from pre-existing conditions and had been deemed disabled by the Social Security Administration prior to the accident. With regard to Trimble, the court noted that "before the accident . . . [she] did not work, received disability benefits, suffered from pain issues regarding his neck and back, and was on medication." With regard to Brewer, the court similarly noted she "did not work, received disability benefits, suffered from pain issues, and was on medication." The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendants because "neither plaintiff substantiated with evidence that their injuries affected their general abilities to lead their normal lives." The plaintiffs only offered evidence of the treatment they received for their injuries, which the court held was insufficient to satisfy the general ability element. In this regard, the court explained: "On appeal, plaintiffs do not specifically argue that their ability to lead their normal lives has been affected. Neither plaintiff points to a specific activity of daily life that he or she is unable to engage in as a result of the injuries sustained in this accident. Rather, plaintiffs focus on the nature and extent of their injuries and treatment, and appear to argue that the resulting ongoing treatment, which has lasted for more than three years and has 'no end in sight,' has affected their ability to lead their normal lives. However, the fact that both plaintiffs underwent lengthy treatments that are still ongoing as a result of the injuries sustained in this accident does not establish that the injuries affected their abilities to lead their normal lives. The fact that an injured person must receive treatment for an injury is separate from whether that injured person's normal life has been affected by the injury.”
