Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #291691; Unpublished
Judges K.F. Kelly, Hoekstra, and Whitbeck; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Important Body Function of Serious Impairment [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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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 in this case sustained a comminuted fracture of the distal shaft of the right femur with displacement, separation, and overriding fragments. Plaintiff underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery for which he was hospitalized for approximately one week. Afterward, he used crutches for about 10 weeks and then used them part-time. He attended “numerous” physical therapy sessions and was restricted from work for approximately six months. After the restriction was lifted, he was placed on light duty restrictions for six weeks. Upon expiration of the six-week period, he had no further restrictions. Nevertheless, he did not resume working until nearly two years after the accident, because he could not find employment.
In affirming, the court noted that although plaintiff testified regarding pain in his leg, knee, and hip, and changes in his recreational activities, he did not present physician-imposed restrictions that limited his activities. In addition, the court noted that the record of the affect of the injuries on plaintiff’s life was not extensive during the period of his physician-imposed restrictions. In this regard, the court stated:
“On July 13, 2005, plaintiff sustained ‘a comminuted fracture of the distal shaft of the right femur with displacement, separation, and overriding of fragments.’ He underwent surgery the following day, which consisted of ‘intramedullary nailing,’ where a rod is inserted into the bone marrow canal in the center of the femur. The fracture was reduced and a femoral nail was placed and locked. Plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately a week. He testified that he used crutches for approximately ten weeks and then used them part time after that. He attended numerous physical therapy sessions. Plaintiff’s physician restricted plaintiff from working until January 2, 2006, approximately six months after the accident. Plaintiff was placed on light duty restrictions for six weeks beginning December 19, 2006. He had no physician-imposed restrictions after the expiration of the December 2006 restrictions. He did not resume working until June 2007 because he could not find employment. . . .
Plaintiff testified regarding his daily experiences with pain in his leg, knee, and hip. . . . Plaintiff testified about changes in his recreational activities, but he did not present physician restrictions that limited his activities in this regard. . . .
[T]he record in this case does not show that the injury’s effect on plaintiff’s life was extensive during the period of the physician’s restrictions. The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff was unable to establish a serious impairment of body function because his injury did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life.”
The court then affirmed the trial court’s rejection of plaintiff’s claim that his surgical scars constituted permanent serious disfigurement. In finding for defendant, the court noted that although plaintiff submitted photographs of his scars, the scars were difficult to detect. Therefore, the court found no basis to conclude that the scars significantly marred or deformed plaintiff’s overall appearance.
