Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258292; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Kelly, and Fort Hood; 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)]
Objective Manifestation 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 sustained a small herniated disc for which she was off work for five days and was treated with ibuprofen and physical therapy. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff only missed five days of work and although she had to modify how she performed certain work duties and was forced to limit recreational activities, her injury did not entirely preclude these activities. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate a serious impairment of a body function because she continued to engage in activities that she enjoyed before the accident, although the duration of the activities was limited. Plaintiff only missed five days of work following the accident. She continued to take vacations, golf, and ski. However, she limited the activity time because of the accident. . . . Like the Kreiner plaintiff, our plaintiff continued to drive and set up displays for work, but modified the amount of materials she carried because of the accident. She did not allege that she was precluded from performing her job functions. The treatment for the injury was conservative, and one medical opinion indicated that her condition should resolve and improve without surgery. Accordingly, . . . the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition.”
