Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264928; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Neff, and Owens; 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined injuries to the lumbar region of her back and experienced numbness in her right leg. These injuries caused her to miss 12 weeks of work.
In affirming the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals first noted that plaintiff failed to support her subjective complaints with medical documentation. Although plaintiff underwent an MRI and X-rays, the examinations did not objectively corroborate plaintiff’s subjective complaints. In this regard, the court explained: “Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and numbness, unsupported by medical documentation, were not enough to prove that an important body function was impaired.”
Moreover, the court then found that even if plaintiff had shown that she suffered an objectively verifiable impairment, she failed to show the alleged impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life. First, although she missed 12 weeks of work, plaintiff failed to submit documentary evidence that she missed work due to a doctor-imposed restriction. Additionally, the work she performed after the accident was similar to the work she performed before the accident. Furthermore, plaintiff testified that her real estate business had actually grown since the accident and that she could do most of her work from home or over the phone. As to her job dealing cards at a casino, plaintiff was able to sit while dealing, thus allowing her to continue that activity. And, although her doctor stated that she should use the escalator at the casino rather than the stairs, this may have inconvenienced plaintiff but it did not prevent her from performing her duties. Moreover, plaintiff was able to engage in other activities after the accident. In this regard the court stated:
“[P]laintiff could walk up stairs at home, prepare meals, shower, brush her hair, do laundry, keep up with housekeeping, go out to dinner, and travel. . . . Plaintiff did not submit evidence pinpointing a physiological basis for her pain while standing or evidence of a physician-imposed restriction limiting her from doing any other activity. . . . Viewing the totality of the circumstances, and taking into account all the Kreiner factors, we conclude plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she suffered an objective, medically verifiable, serious impairment of body function that affected her general ability to lead her normal life.”
