Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259275; Unpublished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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 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. The plaintiff in this case alleged that she sustained back injuries consisting of cervical myositis and a bulging disc. The plaintiff claimed her ability to perform her daily chores, participate in her hobbies and work were severely curtailed due to pain. Although plaintiff claimed she cannot work, before the accident plaintiff only worked occasionally and, when asked her employment status, referred to herself as unemployed. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff’s disabilities are related to pain rather than to physician-imposed restrictions. In this regard, the court noted:
“Moreover, plaintiff attributes all her limitations or disabilities to pain, yet has little to show in the way of physician-imposed restrictions. What there is relates to her employment prospects. But plaintiff’s deposition testimony indicates that her immediate pre-accident history included, at best, spotty, occasional employment. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that plaintiff was actually offered employment that she would have accepted but for medically imposed restrictions, any such restrictions actually noted are merely hypothetical.”
