Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #283987; Unpublished
Judges Wilder, Meter, and Servitto; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010 [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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.
The plaintiff sustained a back injury characterized by two bulging discs at L3-L4 and L4-L5, lumbar radiculopathy, and disc protrusion at L4-L5. In affirming summary disposition for defendant, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff claimed she can no longer perform household chores, cook, shop, or attend her daughter’s activities because it is too painful to sit in order to watch them, she failed to show that she sustained a threshold injury. In so finding, the court noted there were no doctor orders restricting her from physical activity. Although her MRI and film scans show degenerative changes and disc protrusions and bulges, she did not require surgery. In addition, there was no record of physician-imposed restrictions based on pain. Moreover, she was not restricted from any activities. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff’s restrictions appeared to be self-imposed. In this regard, the court stated:
“Since the accident, plaintiff claims she is unable to do household chores, cook, or shop due to the pain it causes. She is also unable to attend her daughter’s activities because it is too painful to sit down and watch them. . . .
Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that there are no doctor’s orders restricting her physical activities. Plaintiff’s MRI and film scans show some degenerative changes with the disc and some slight disk protrusions at L1-L2 to the left and a little broad based bulge at 3-4, but neither requires surgery. Further, there is no record of physician-imposed restrictions . . . merely a doctor’s note in a chart that she continues to complain of pain from her back issues. The trial court did not err in concluding that while plaintiff demonstrated the impairment of an important body function, the evidence that her restrictions appear to be completely self-imposed based on perceived pain, is not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she has the ability to lead her normal life. . . .”
