Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #287079; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Markey, and Borrello; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as interpreted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 defendants on plaintiffs’ claim for noneconomic damages.
The court characterized the plaintiff’s injury as follows:
“The evidence established that plaintiff had muscle spasms in ‘the left upper and lower extremity’ on the day after the accident. An MRI performed approximately three weeks after the accident showed a soft tissue injury of the shin and probable hematoma. Nerve conduction studies and an EMG examination of the upper extremities revealed muscle spasms in the cervical and shoulder areas. An MRI relative to plaintiff’s neck pain was mostly unremarkable, but there was a ‘mildly centrally protruding disc at the C5-6 level.’ Moreover, subsequent nerve conduction studies and an EMG examination were unremarkable except for evidence of spasm in the lumbrosacral region and an EMG result showing ‘minor local spontaneous waves in anterior tibialis left side, probably secondary to muscle damage/contusion.’ This evidence established objective manifestation of neck, shoulder, back and leg injuries.”
In affirming, the court noted that although plaintiff used a wheelchair for approximately five months after the accident, followed by a walker and then a cane, she primarily worked a desk job and there was no evidence concerning her normal life before the accident. Moreover, the court noted that plaintiff returned to her job 15 months after the accident and, although she had concentration problems due to pain, she was able to perform her job. In this regard, the court stated:
“The evidence showed that plaintiff began using a cane ten months after the accident and that before this, she used a wheelchair for about five months and then a walker. She worked as a program specialist, which was primarily a desk job, although she had to walk to interact with various people and to attend frequent meetings. Other than her ability to ambulate and do her job before the accident, there was no evidence concerning plaintiff’s normal life before the accident. Her ability to walk was impaired and this affected her ability to work. Nonetheless, she returned to work 15 months after her accident and, although she had concentration problems and was unable to attend some meetings due to pain, she was able to perform her job. Based solely on our Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner, supra, we are legally compelled to conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that plaintiff failed to establish that her impairments ‘affected [her] general ability to conduct the course of . . . her normal life.’”
