Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266382; Unpublished
Judges Davis, Cavanagh, and Talbot; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 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 back injury when her vehicle was rear-ended. A year later, MRI testing revealed that she had a herniated disc at the L5/S1 level. She was also diagnosed with severe disc disorder and radiculopathy. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals reasoned that although plaintiff was off work and bed ridden for several months and was unable to engage in recreational activities in which she engaged before her accident, “for the most part” plaintiff was able to continue to lead her normal life. In so finding, the court noted that plaintiff failed to seek medical treatment until three months after the accident and had no doctor-imposed restrictions on work or her recreational activities. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Plaintiff’s attachments . . . included . . . Dr. Obayan’s correspondence indicating that the back condition was caused by the collision, and Dr. Obayan’s affidavit which included the statement that she concluded ‘within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that as a result of the motor vehicle accident . . . [plaintiff] suffered a disc herniation at L5/S1and suffers from Severe Disc Disorder and radiculopathy . . . .’ Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that plaintiff, for the most part, is able to lead her normal life and the impairment did not significantly affect the course or trajectory of plaintiff’s life. . . . The collision occurred on September 27, 2002, but plaintiff did not seek medical treatment until December 12, 2002, and she continued to work full-time until May 1, 2003. No evidence of any physical activity restrictions was presented to the trial court. Plaintiff testified that she was off of work from the end of April 2003 until September 2003, at which time she stayed in bed except to get medical treatment. Again, no evidence of any physical activity restrictions was presented and plaintiff admitted that her activities were not restricted by a physician. From September of 2003 until September of 2004, plaintiff worked part-time, six hours a day, five days a week. She began back to work full-time in September of 2005. Plaintiff testified that before the collision, on the weekends, she would shop, go bowling, go to the movies, and have family over, garden, and swim. She further testified that she has been unable to participate in these activities because of her injuries, although a physician had not restricted her from such participation. Such self-imposed restrictions are not persuasive of the level or extent of impairment. . . . In short, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that her general ability to lead her normal life has been sufficiently affected; therefore, summary dismissal was proper.”
