Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #265145; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Wilder, and Hood; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
In this case, the 65-year-old plaintiff sustained ill-defined back injuries in a head-on collision. The plaintiff, who had been had been receiving disability benefits due to severe scoliosis and degenerative arthritis in his lower back, knees, and legs, complained the accident exacerbated his pre-existing condition. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted the following: he now requires a cane in order to walk long distances; he requires assistance to complete certain household tasks; he cannot bend down to put on his socks or shoes; he cannot hunt or fish as often as he had before the accident; he sleeps poorly and can only lay in one position. In affirming the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals agreed that the ability to walk is an important body function. However, it found plaintiff failed to show the exacerbation of his pre-existing back condition affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the restrictions on his hunting, fishing, shopping, or socializing activities are anything other than self-imposed. In 1990, plaintiff complained to doctors . . . that he was no longer able to hunt or fish because of his back pain. At that time, he was also walking with a cane and was frustrated with his inability to complete household activities. He also complained of his inability to sleep well. . . . Since the accident, plaintiff was able to go fishing four times and deer hunting once, although he testified at his deposition that he has discontinued these activities. However, he admitted that he is still able to hunt small game, drive his own vehicle, cook, clean his apartment except the floors, do his own grocery shopping, and wash half his laundry. While we acknowledge that some aspects of plaintiff’s entire normal life may be interrupted by the aggravation or exacerbation of symptoms, we conclude that the course or trajectory of his normal life has not been affected by these slight changes. Therefore, his general ability to lead his normal life has not been affected and he does not meet the serious impairment of body function threshold.”
