Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #265732; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Saad, and Bandstra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined back and neck injuries for which he did not seek immediate medical attention and missed no work. In affirming the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff had been prescribed pain medication and participated in physical therapy. It also noted that although plaintiff claimed he could not work as many hours per day as he did before the accident, he was still able to work 10-hour days. Moreover, defendant’s photographic evidence showed that plaintiff is able to perform construction work. Furthermore, plaintiff is able to sit for long periods of time, albeit with a back brace, in order to draft building plans. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, while plaintiff was given pain medicine and participated in physical therapy, he did not require immediate medical treatment or surgery, and did not miss work. . . . Plaintiff continues to work full time, although he reports that his ten-hour workdays are shorter than those he maintained prior to the accident. Plaintiff continues to be able to engage in virtually all facets of his building and real estate business. He maintains that he is physically limited from participating in the building of homes; however, this assertion is contradicted by defendant’s photographic evidence showing plaintiff engaging in actual construction work. Some of the activities shown, such as carrying full sheets of plywood, require considerable back strength. Plaintiff also continues to be able to sit and draft for lengthy periods of time, albeit while wearing a brace to alleviate some of his pain. Plaintiff did assert that he could no longer perform heavy foundation concrete work. However, even were we to accept that testimony as true, plaintiff’s overall ability to perform the tasks needed for the builder portion of his career has not been appreciably diminished. . . . In addition, while plaintiff is more limited in his role as hockey coach, he continues to coach and to skate. He does not present evidence of severely curtailed pre-accident physical activities or of an otherwise highly active lifestyle. Nor have the remainder of his usual life activities been appreciably affected.”
