Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258745; Unpublished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)]
Determining Permanent Serious Disfigurement As a Matter of Law [3135(1)(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 and permanent serious disfigurement. The plaintiff in this case sustained ill-defined injuries to her lower back, left knee, jaw and two of her teeth. In finding that plaintiff failed to prove a serious impairment of an important body function, the court noted that although plaintiff sought immediate treatment for head, back and knee pain, as well as for her chipped teeth, it was several months before she sought additional treatment. Moreover, even though she complained of stiffness, her injuries have not affected her current employment and have only had a minor effect on her prior activities. In this regard, the court stated:
“[W]e conclude that plaintiff has failed to show that her initial injuries, when coupled with any residual effects, changed her general ability to lead her normal life under the standard set out in Kreiner. . . Plaintiff initially complained of head, back, and knee pain, and chipped teeth. She was given pain medication and released. She did not return for further treatment for a number of months. Plaintiff reports continued pain and stiffness, but she has shown only a minor effect on her prior activities. Her injuries have not impacted her actual current employment, and her statement that her limitations would impact her ability to complete vocational programs or to maintain employment in the cosmetology field is speculative. She does not present evidence of severely curtailed pre-accident physical activities or of an otherwise active lifestyle. . . . While her jaw pain may impact her ability to eat certain foods in a particular way, she does not have difficulty eating in general. In addition, plaintiff’s reported inability to engage in her usual activities in the months following the accident appears to be entirely self-imposed limitations based on pain. These alone cannot establish a threshold injury. . . . Under the circumstances, we find that plaintiff has failed to establish that any impairment affected her general ability to lead her normal life.”
The court next affirmed the trial court’s determination that plaintiff failed to support her claim that her chipped teeth constituted permanent serious disfigurement. In reaching this decision, the court reviewed the medical evidence which did not indicate that plaintiff’s teeth were chipped or missing. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that summary disposition for defendants was proper.
