Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266164; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, White, and Meter; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 alleged she tore the posterior cruciate ligament of her left knee and experienced cervicalgia emanating from her C6-C7 disc in her neck. In affirming the trial court’s opinion, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff alleged that she can no longer do activities in which she has to kneel, such as cleaning her floor and tub, that she limps when she walks, and that she cannot lift her granddaughter, these assertions conflict with her admission that she has full range of motion in her neck, she exercises and does all her housework. Therefore, the court concluded plaintiff’s normal life had not been affected. Moreover, even if her activities were curtailed for a short period of time, temporary infringements do not affect the course or trajectory of a plaintiff’s normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“The excerpts from plaintiff’s deposition that were included in the lower court record demonstrate that ‘the course or trajectory of . . . plaintiff’s normal life has not been affected.’ . . . Plaintiff admitted that she has a full range of motion in her neck, that she still exercises at Curves, and that she does all her household chores and works in her yard. Apparently, she had to suspend her exercise program for some months after the accident and also needed help with housework after the accident. Temporary infringements on plaintiff’s lifestyle did not, in our opinion, affect the ‘course or trajectory of . . . plaintiff’s normal life.’”
