Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #288659; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Markey, and Borrello; unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [3135(1)]
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability/Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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 sustained a grade V shoulder separation for which he underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery in order to place a screw in his shoulder. The screw was surgically removed several months later. Due to the injury, plaintiff, who was retired but employed part-time, missed four to five weeks of work as a courtesy driver. In addition, plaintiff experienced soreness and pain when lifting heavy packages, sweeping, doing yard work, and golfing. In granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the court noted that although “some aspects of plaintiff’s entire normal life are impinged upon by the effects of his impairment, the course or trajectory of his normal life has not been affected.” In addition, the court granted defendant summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for serious disfigurement. In affirming, the court noted that the only evidence to support plaintiff’s claim were some photographs showing a bump between his neck and shoulder which showed a slight discoloration of skin where a surgical scar appeared to be. However, the court stated that plaintiff cited no authority to any evidence suggesting that the scar had a detrimental, emotional, or any other effect on the plaintiff. In this regard, the court stated:
“The issue is whether this impairment affects plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. MCL 500.3135(7). Plaintiff testified at his deposition that following the accident he did not work at the car dealership for four to five months, and he golfed less than normal in 2007. He also testified that once back at work he could feel soreness and light pain when he would lift heavy packages or sweep the floor. Plaintiff felt pain when golfing and during some yard work as well. Plaintiff described the pain as brief, dull, and short. . . .
While some aspects of plaintiff’s entire normal life are impinged upon by the effects of his impairment, the course or trajectory of his normal life has not been affected. . . .
The only evidence presented to support plaintiff’s claim of permanent serious disfigurement was some photographs of his left shoulder. The pictures show a bump between the neck and left shoulder and, if examined closely, show a slight discoloration of skin where the surgical scar appears to be. However, plaintiff cites no authority in the record to any evidence suggesting that the scarring has had a detrimental emotional or any other effect on plaintiff.”
