Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264265; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, White, and Fort 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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. The plaintiff in this case sustained a herniated disc that “later resolved itself.” Over a four-year period, he received manipulative therapy, electrical stimulation and was prescribed Vicodin for pain. Four years after the accident, an independent medical examiner diagnosed plaintiff with chronic back pain and spinal stenosis and determined plaintiff could do no work that involved bending, twisting or lifting. Plaintiff eventually quit his job in which he made deliveries and stocked parts. Plaintiff also asserted he could no longer hunt, fish, swim, bowl, drive a go-kart, and perform household chores or regular home maintenance.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals determined that under the totality of the circumstances, only one aspect of the plaintiff’s life had been affected–his ability to perform his former job. Moreover, any additional restrictions were self-imposed, and self-imposed restrictions are insufficient to show a residual impairment. In this regard, the court stated:
“Although plaintiff is now unable to hold a job requiring bending, twisting, or lifting, he did continue in his job for four years afer the accident and his medical records reflect that he continued to do heavy lifting. Further, the rest of the residual impairments . . . are self-imposed restrictions based on plaintiff’s subjective belief that he is unable to do them. Such self-imposed restrictions are not sufficient under the objective standards required by Kreiner. . . . Therefore, plaintiff has merely demonstrated that one aspect of his life is changed due to the impairment. His treatments were not aggressive and he does not require any assistive devices. He has also gone up to a year without seeking any medical assistance for the impairment. . . . Considering the totality of the circumstances here, only one aspect of plaintiff’s life has been affected, and not his general ability to conduct the course of his normal life.”
