Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258368; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Wilder, and Zahra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 defendant’s motion for summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case sustained undefined shoulder injuries in a June 2002 automobile accident for which she produced no medical documentation. She was involved in a second accident in 2003 which she claimed exacerbated her original injuries. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff failed to present evidence of an objectively manifested impairment of a body function arising from the first accident. In this regard, the court stated:
“In this case, plaintiffs point to no medical evidence that plaintiff suffered any impairment of body function during the thirteen months that separated her two accidents. Given that the reports of serious diagnoses and treatments for plaintiff’s shoulder pain, and of lifestyle adjustments allegedly resulting therefrom, all date from after the second accident, the first accident in fact seems less likely than the second to be the cause of any condition affecting plaintiff’s normal life at present. . . . Plaintiffs state that plaintiff ‘continued to complain of pain in her right shoulder when she was involved in a second accident,’ which ‘exacerbated all her previous injuries,’ but do not assert that plaintiff suffered any physician-imposed restrictions on her activities based . . . before that second accident. Because the first generated no medical evidence suggesting an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function occurring over the thirteen months that followed, the second rendered it impossible to trace any such manifestation to the first except through recourse to speculation or conjecture. . . . Because speculation or conjecture do not suffice to oppose a motion for summary disposition brought under MCL 2.116(C)(10), the trial court properly granted summary disposition in this instance.”
