Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266603; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, O’Connell, and Murray; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 sustained ill-defined back injuries for which he was treated with pain medication and physical therapy. Plaintiff was off work for 10 months, was restricted from heavy housework and heavy lifting for nine months and no longer participated in sports. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that at the time of the accident, plaintiff was off work other reasons. When he returned to work, he had lifting restrictions but was able to perform his regular job duties. Moreover, although plaintiff testified that he no longer participated in sports, he had no physician-imposed restrictions. In this regard, the court stated:
“At the time of the accident, plaintiff was already off work for other reasons. He returned to work on April 7, 2004, and was able to do his regular job, albeit with a lifting restriction. As of July 2004, plaintiff reported that he only had intermittent pain and was often pain-free despite engaging in regular physical activities including sports. The only residual impairments were limitations on plaintiff’s physical activities. Plaintiff testified that he no longer engaged in sports, but admitted that his doctors had not imposed a restriction on sports. . . . The only physician-imposed restriction was against housework and heavy lifting for the first nine months after the accident. This is a minor limitation that affects only one aspect of daily living. Because the evidence failed to show that plaintiff’s injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life, the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion.”
