Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258976; Unpublished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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 elderly plaintiff in this case sustained several broken ribs and pleural effusion which required a five-day hospital stay. Upon discharge from the hospital, plaintiff was bed-ridden for ten days. In agreeing that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff is able to cook, shop, go to church, travel, visit with her grandchildren, knit and crochet, do her laundry and attend to her daily needs. And, although she testified that she limited some of her activities, she has no doctor-imposed restrictions. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff . . . could still cook, go grocery shopping, go to church, travel, visit with her grandchildren, knit and crochet, do laundry, and attend to her daily needs. She limited some of these activities and gave up other activities because of residual pain. There is no evidence that these restrictions were imposed by a doctor, and ‘[s]elf-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 did not err in concluding that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life.”
In dissenting, Judge Neff found because plaintiff’s impairment could be permanent, and because she had to change her lifestyle, the injury has affected the course of plaintiff’s normal life.
