Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258904; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Hoekstra, and Markey; 2-1 (Judge Hoekstra concurring in result only); 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 66-year-old plaintiff sustained an ill-defined neck and shoulder injury for which he was treated with pain medication and physical therapy and instructed to wear a cervical collar. A year later, plaintiff was diagnosed as having accident-related injuries which included aggravation of a pre-existing condition of osteoarthritis of the cervical and lumbar spine. Although plaintiff’s physician restricted him from performing certain household chores, such as shoveling snow and raking leaves, he was given no other restrictions. In affirming the trial court order, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life even though he claimed he could no longer golf, play basketball, bike ride, and perform yard work and other household chores. According to the court, the only limitations that were physician-imposed were the restrictions on certain household chores. Plaintiff’s additional limitations were self imposed based on pain, and self-imposed limitations are insufficient to establish a residual impairment. Furthermore, plaintiff is still able to attend his grandchildren’s school functions, he can cook, drive and exercise. Moreover, his medical records indicate that his pain has improved and that he is no longer attending physical therapy or receiving other medical treatment. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff asserts that he is no longer able to golf, play basketball, or engage in household tasks such as mowing the lawn and other ‘handyman’ functions. His testimony, however, indicates that he limited these activities based on pain, rather than at the direction of a physician or other health care professional. . . . Therefore, these constitute self-imposed restrictions based on pain that are insufficient to establish a residual impairment. . . . .
Aside from his reduced participation in recreational activities, the most significant change in plaintiff’s life after the accident is that he is limited in performing certain household chores. While this limitation was noted in his medical records, it is not itself sufficient to demonstrate a general inability to lead his normal life. . . . Even if he is no longer able to engage in ‘handyman tasks’ such as shoveling and raking, this effect on a particular aspect of his life is insufficient to establish a change in his general ability to lead his normal life.
Overall, the course of plaintiff’s life has not been changed by the accident. Plaintiff continues to attend his grandchildren’s school functions, to cook, and to drive, albeit less frequently than he did before the accident. He is able to exercise, including walking and riding a stationary bicycle. His medical records indicate that his neck pain has improved, and he is no longer undergoing physical therapy or medical treatment other than pain medication. Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff’s impairment has not affected his general ability to lead his normal life, and the trial court did not err granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
