Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258121; Unpublished
Judges Borrelli, 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 tore the meniscus in her right knee in an automobile accident. Because plaintiff was pregnant at the time the accident occurred, her doctor decided to postpone surgery until after the delivery. Despite the birth of the baby, plaintiff did not undergo knee surgery. Plaintiff also admitted she performs most of her daily activities, which includes shopping, cooking, driving and house cleaning.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals first noted plaintiff had no doctor imposed restrictions and plaintiff admitted she participates in most of her pre-accident activities. The court then compared this case to the facts in Moore v Cregeur. In Cregeur, the plaintiff’s impaired vision was permanent and affected every aspect of her waking life. The only impairment the plaintiff in this case suffered is pain when she attempted to squat. Moreover, the court noted plaintiff failed to show her impairment was permanent. In this regard, the court stated:
“This Court’s recent decision in Moore . . . is instructive. The plaintiff sustained injuries to both of her eyes, requiring surgery. . . . The left eye was successfully repaired, but not the right, and so an impairment remained. . . . According to the evidence, glasses could not correct the condition, and further surgery carried the risk of permanent blindness. . . . This Court noted that the plaintiff’s loss of vision ‘will affect every aspect of her waking life to some extent,’ and the aggregate effects thereof affected her general ability to lead her normal life. . . . In this case however, plaintiff’s knee injury does not affect every aspect of her waking life, but instead causes pain when she tries to squat, such that she elects not to. . . . The Moore plaintiff’s eye surgery involved permanent injury or risky surgery. . . . In this instant case, however, plaintiff has not proffered any evidence that her injury is permanent, or that surgery would not correct it without imposing significant risks.”
