Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266733; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Whitbeck, and O’Connell; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 suffered injuries to her right shoulder described as “internal derangement of the right shoulder with secondary trigger points on the medial border of the right scapula,” for which she required arthroscopic surgery. She also suffered a herniated cervical disc. The plaintiff, who was approximately 30 years old at the time of her injury, was off work three separate times: once for two weeks, once for one week and for six weeks after her surgery. In addition, plaintiff engaged in physical therapy from March, 2003 to June, 2003. In affirming, the Court of Appeals determined plaintiff failed to show she suffered a serious impairment of body function. In so finding, the court noted plaintiff had fully recovered within six months of her surgery. Moreover, although plaintiff testified that she is unable to perform certain activities without pain, there are no activities she is unable to perform. In this regard, the court stated:
“As a result of the accident, May, who was approximately 30-years-old at the time of the accident, suffered a herniated cervical disc and injuries to her right shoulder. . . . [A]n MRI . . . revealed . . . ‘disk space narrowing at C6-C7, posterior bulge of the corresponding disc.’ . . . Dr. Iwanow examined May’s right shoulder, and he concluded that May had ‘[i]nternal derangement of the right shoulder with secondary trigger points on the medial border of the right scapula.’ . . .
Our review of the exhibits and testimony in this case reveals nothing to create a question of fact that May suffered a serious impairment of body function. While we acknowledge May’s claim that she was precluded from using her arm for the six weeks following her surgery, the evidence reveals that May was recuperated six months after her surgery, and there is no indication that May has suffered an ongoing ‘complete loss’ of her arm comparable to those losses sustained in Moore and Williams. . . .
Although some aspects of May’s life have been affected – in her deposition testimony she explained that she is unable to perform various domestic and recreational activities without pain – we conclude that the course or trajectory of her life has not been affected. There are no activities that May has been rendered completely unable to perform. The evidence further shows that May was able to return to work, without restrictions. And while May was restricted from using her arm for a brief time prior to and for several months after her surgery, any residual restrictions on May’s ability to perform her daily activities are self-imposed. We, therefore, conclude that May failed to present sufficient evidence to show that her injuries affected her general ability to lead her normal life as defined in Kreiner. There is no indication that May suffers from any physical disability that prevents her from engaging in work or other daily activities. While May’s injuries may have caused temporary disruption to her daily activities, the residual effects of her injuries have not caused a life altering injury as described in Kreiner. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that her injuries did not meet the threshold requirement under MCL 500.3135(1).”
