Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #284676; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Murray, and Stephens; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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 in this case fractured her right wrist in a motor vehicle accident for which she was casted for seven weeks, restricted from work for two months, and according to her physician had regained 90% of her wrist extension nine weeks after the accident. Plaintiff claimed she continued to have reduced range-of-motion and strength in her right hand and wrist and impaired ability to work as a waitress. She claimed her wrist injury made it difficult for her to feed, hold, and carry her child; open heavy doors; drive a vehicle with manual transmission; and write. In addition, plaintiff claimed she was no longer able to do yoga or ride her dirt bike. Nevertheless, the court affirmed, noting that when plaintiff was released from treatment, her doctor indicated she had healed “well and rapidly” and that there was no indication of permanent injury. Moreover, the court noted that plaintiff was released from treatment without restrictions and the only limitations the plaintiff was experiencing were self-imposed. In this regard, the court stated:
“The medical reports indicate that the doctor was not only permitting plaintiff to use her hand and wrist, but was encouraging her to do exercises so that she would recover her range of motion and strength. The comments on the medical reports indicate she healed well and rapidly, and there is no indication of any permanent injury. Indeed, within two months of the accident, plaintiff’s doctor had returned her to work and allowed her to do whatever she wanted. . . .
The only limitations plaintiff is experiencing are self-imposed, and are due to pain and strength limits, which the medical reports imply simply require some time and exercises to overcome.”
