Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264248; Unpublished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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of 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 was initially diagnosed with an ankle sprain. However, later MRIs and CAT scans revealed multiple fractures to his left foot and ankle, including a stress fracture to the left foot, a fracture in the third cuneiform of the left foot, linear fractures in the basil areas of the left third and fourth metatarsal bones, and linear fractures of the head of the left first metatarsal bone, as well as severe lateral collateral tears and contusions. To treat his injuries, he was placed in a series of casts and an Ankle Foot Arthosis (AFO). A year after the accident, plaintiff was diagnosed with degenerative midfoot arthritis secondary to the fractures. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted the injury affected plaintiff’s ability to walk and has required the use of a ankle brace for at least a year and possibly for life. In so holding, the court stated:
“In the present case, . . . we conclude that Cornett’s impairment affects his general ability to lead his normal life. Although Cornett was initially diagnosed with a left ankle sprain based on x-rays following the accident, and treated accordingly, over the course of the next several months additional testing, including an MRI and CAT scans, indicated multiple fractures in his foot. On February 9, 2004, he was diagnosed with severe lateral collateral tears and contusions, and a stress fracture to the left foot. On March 4, 2004, a three-phase bone scan revealed a fracture in the third cuneiform of the left foot. On March 12, 2004, a scan indicated linear fractures in the basil areas of the left third and fourth metatarsal bones, as well as linear fractures of the head of the left first metatarsal bone. His foot was placed in a series of casts. During this time, Cornett continued to experience swelling and pain, and had difficulty regaining use of his foot. In February 2005, Cornett was diagnosed with degenerative midfoot arthritis in his left foot, secondary to fracture/trauma. Consequently, Cornett was fitted with an Ankle Foot Arthosis (AFO) in March 2005 to stabilize his foot and ankle, which he reportedly was wearing daily as of April 12, 2005. . . . The impairment of Cornett’s foot and ankle, the necessity of wearing the AFO, which affects his ability to perform his job and other daily activities, and the likely permanent nature of the arthritic condition, has affected his ‘general ability’ to conduct the course of his normal life.’ . . . Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
