Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #257646; Unpublished
Judges Borrello, Sawyer, and Fitzgerald; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 reversed 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 undefined injuries to one of his wrists which, despite multiple surgeries over a nine-month period, resulted in permanent loss of range of motion and significant pain. Due to the loss of range of motion, plaintiff was forced to take a job that paid less than he had earned before the accident. Moreover, the injury required plaintiff to limit his daily activities. In reversing the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition, the Court of Appeals determined the permanent loss of range of motion of his wrist created a material question regarding whether plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff complains of injuries to his wrist, resulting in pain and reduced range of motion. He spent nine months undergoing operations on his wrist and having his wrist in a cast. Plaintiff and his expert both asserted that plaintiff would continue to experience significant wrist pain and a limited range of motion in the injured hand. As a result of the injury, plaintiff was forced to take a job with less pay and to limit his daily activities. Plaintiff’s expert further stated that plaintiff’s wrist would not improve and would degenerate further, indicating that the pain and limited range of motion were permanent. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there exists a material factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries that is material to the question whether plaintiff has suffered serious impairment of a body function.”
