Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259017; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Owens, and Donofrio; 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 Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 injuries when she was struck by a car while walking in a parking structure. In affirming, the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff failed to allege how her injuries affected the course and trajectory of her life. Although she stated that she missed eight days of work and that she now has difficulty due to pain when she jogs, swims, laughs or plays tennis, plaintiff is under no medical restrictions, is able to perform all the requirements of her job and is not receiving continuing care for her injuries. In this regard, the court stated:
“Fatal to plaintiff’s case is that she fails to point to evidence that her injuries have altered the trajectory of her life. . . . She details that she missed eight days of work, and asserts that she has difficulty jogging, swimming, laughing, and playing tennis because of pain. But, in her deposition, plaintiff confirmed that she was under no medical restrictions, was able to perform all activities at her job, and was not under treatment for any physical problem stemming from the accident. . . . Because plaintiff’s alleged impairments all result from discomfort and not physical inability . . . and do not take the form of physician-imposed restrictions, plaintiff fails as a matter of law to support any claim that the accident involving defendant’s driving left her with a serious impairment of body function for purposes of restoring tort liability under the no-fault act.”
