Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258974; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Saad, and Bandstra; 2-1 (Judge Neff dissenting); 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 torn ligaments to her right knee which required surgical repair and ten weeks of physical therapy. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was a sophomore in high school. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff was able to walk without assistance a month after surgery; she missed only a couple days of school immediately after the accident and after her surgery and was off work for a few months. And, although she stopped playing basketball and did not rejoin the marching band, these restrictions were self-imposed. In this regard, the court stated:
“The minor plaintiff was hit by a car on October 30, 2003. The impact tore ligaments in her right knee. The ligaments were repaired with surgery in December 2003, and plaintiff was able to walk without assistance within a month. Following a ten-week course of physical therapy, plaintiff had regained full range of motion and nearly full function and was released without restrictions. She missed less than three months of work. She missed a few days of school immediately after the accident and a few more after the surgery, returning to school after the Christmas holiday. She had some residual pain with prolonged standing and walking, which sometimes caused swelling. The primary effects of the injury were that plaintiff stopped playing basketball and did not rejoin the marching band during the remainder of the school year. These restrictions were self-imposed. ‘Self-imposed restrictions, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, based on real or perceived pain do not establish’ residual impairment. . . . In light of such evidence, the trial court properly determined that plaintiff’s injury did not affect her ability to lead her normal life.”
In dissenting, Judge Neff expressed her opinion that due to plaintiff’s injury and lengthy recovery, plaintiff, an active teenager, suffered a serious impairment of body function that had a significant affect on her ability to lead her normal life.
