Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #253974; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Smolenski, and Talbot; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained undefined injuries. In determining the plaintiff’s injuries did not affect her ability to lead her normal life, the Court of Appeals noted the plaintiff had been continuously employed since the accident, has gone on several trips, and participates in many of the same activities she enjoyed before the accident. The court further noted that plaintiff was under no doctor imposed restrictions. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff has been employed continuously and successfully in her chosen field since the accident. . . . Although plaintiff stated that there are some activities that she cannot perform without pain and discomfort, she did not testify that she cannot perform the activities. Indeed, she still participates in many of the same recreational activities now as she did prior to the accident. She has also taken two trips since the accident, one to Las Vegas and the other to the east coast, where plaintiff spent five days driving around Delaware, Maryland, and Philadelphia with a friend. She still exercises three to five times a week, doing sit-ups and walking two to three miles, and still performs most household chores. Furthermore, no doctor has placed restrictions on her activities as a result of her injuries. Consequently, we conclude the summary disposition was appropriately granted.”
