Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #256110; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Whitbeck, and Schuette; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case was diagnosed with acute thoracic pain secondary to a motor vehicle accident. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff asserted the injury caused him to limit the amount of time he played with his children and to shorten his golf game to nine holes, he did not abandon these activities altogether. Moreover, the court noted plaintiff returned to work without restrictions shortly after the accident, walked around Disneyland, helped his brother work on his house and go fishing. Thus, the court determined that although plaintiff showed he had to modify his activities because of his injuries, he failed to show the injuries had forced the course and trajectory of his life to change. In this regard, the court stated:
“In this case, Brent Stanley repeatedly complained of back pain and spasms, and continued to receive pain medicine, but certain medical records described the pain as nonspecific and lacking a precise diagnosis. Although Brent Stanley complained that his back pain caused him to limit the degree to which he played with his children and to shorten his golf game to nine holes, he does not assert that he was obliged wholly to abandon either activity. The evidence further shows that Brent Stanley was able to return to work, without restrictions, shortly after the accident; walk about Disneyland; help his brother work on his house; and go fishing. Brent Stanley thus complains of modifications in his routine, not a change in his life’s trajectory. A comparison of the lingering injuries and hindrances of which Brent Stanley complains, with those found not to be actionable in Kreiner confirms that the Stanleys do not have a case in this instance. Brent Stanley describes receiving only pain medicine and some massage therapy for his back. He complains of having to limit his activities but not of having to renounce them entirely. . . . We reverse the trial court’s decision and remand this case with instructions to grant the Lichtis summary disposition.”
