Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #267995; Unpublished
Judges Davis, Sawyer, and Schuette; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 injuries to one of his knees for which he wore a brace, received physical therapy, and was treated with pain medication. Plaintiff, a prison inmate, argued the normal course of his life was affected by his injury because he could no longer participate in physically demanding sports, such as hockey or basketball. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff still takes pain medication, he no longer requires use of a brace. In addition, although he can no longer participate in physically demanding recreational activities, plaintiff can participate in other activities such as walking, weight lifting, visiting the library and taking part in sports as a spectator. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff argues essentially that the extent of any residual impairment is great, especially considering his otherwise limited mobility in prison. However, plaintiff’s claimed limitations appear largely self-imposed and based on real or perceived pain. These cannot be used to establish a threshold injury. . . . To the extent the restrictions are based on underlying physical incapacity, such as his reported leg spasms or numbness, we find that plaintiff still cannot meet the threshold. Plaintiff arguably cannot play hockey, basketball, or other physically demanding sports. However, plaintiff can participate in the majority of the activities otherwise available. He can walk for an hour without difficulty, use the library, take part in sports as a spectator, and use the gym. He can continue to lift weights, although in a more limited manner. He works in the laundry. He could presumably also work in other positions at the prison, with the exception of acting as a referee in the recreation department.
We view the curtailment of part of plaintiff’s recreational activities as having greater significance, because these activities presumably become more central with the loss of other freedoms. However, these activities remain but one particular aspect of plaintiff’s life, which is not sufficient to meet the tort threshold, ‘as long as the injured person is still generally able to lead his normal life.’ . . . Under the circumstances, plaintiff has shown that the accident has had some effect on his activities, even though those activities have themselves been limited due to other factors. However, he has not shown that ‘the course or trajectory of [his] normal life’ has been affected so as to meet the threshold requirement.”
