Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #257683; Unpublished
Judges Davis, Cavanagh, and Talbot; 2-1 (Judge Talbot 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 reversed 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 nerve, muscle and ligament injuries to his back for which he received years of treatment including physical therapy, pain medication, anti-inflammatory medication, medication to help him sleep, trigger point injections and prolotherapy injections. In finding there were factual disputes regarding whether plaintiff’s injury affected his general ability to lead his normal life, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff provided expert testimony that his condition had worsened over the years. According to plaintiff’s physician, plaintiff’s condition had deteriorated to the point where plaintiff should be permanently restricted from labor intensive work, especially the type of work he performed at the time of the accident in order to avoid further aggravating his condition. The court also noted that plaintiff’s physician testified that plaintiff should not do overhead work, repetitive movements or lift more than ten pounds. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . [W]hen the totality of the circumstances are considered, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The permanent and progressive nature of the spinal impairment, years of testing and treatment, and other circumstances support a reasonable inference that every aspect of Rayes’ life was affected to some degree and will continue to be affected. Viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence supports a conclusion that the normal course of Rayes’ overall life was affected in a significant way. . . . Because factual disputes concerning the nature and extent of Rayes’ injuries are material in determining whether he suffered a serious impairment of body function, summary disposition was inappropriate.”
Judge Talbot, dissenting, believes that because plaintiff was able to work without interruption since the accident, he failed to show his injury affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
