Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #267180; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Markey, and Meter; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 his neck for which he received physical therapy. He also suffered temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) for which he underwent bite splint therapy. On appeal, plaintiff argued that he can no longer perform heavy carpentry work or heavy landscaping and that he has had to alter the manner in which he eats certain foods. In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff produced evidence that his injuries have had some effect on his normal life, he failed to show the injuries affected the course or trajectory of his normal life. For instance, the court noted plaintiff’s work has been unaffected and he continues to be able to do household chores and mow the lawn. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that he is physically handicapped from a wide range of activities. In this regard, the court stated:
“In this case, physician records support a conclusion that plaintiff injured his neck in the accident. Physician reports have also connected plaintiff’s jaw symptoms, or at least the exacerbation of these symptoms, to the accident. Thus, plaintiff has arguably shown the objective manifestation of an injury that impaired an important body function. However, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to show that his initial injuries, when coupled with any residual effects, changed his general ability to lead his normal life under the standard set out in
Kreiner. . .
Plaintiff’s initial injuries were not as serious as those suffered by the plaintiff Straub in the companion case to Kreiner, . . . or to the plaintiff Kreiner himself. . . . Plaintiff initially complained of head, back, and jaw pain. He underwent chiropractic treatment and was later given a bite splint. Plaintiff reports continued pain and stiffness. He also reports suffering headaches and having difficulty eating certain foods. However, the trial court correctly noted that plaintiff has shown only a minor effect on his prior activities. His injuries have not impacted his actual current or future employment. He does not present evidence of severely curtailed pre-accident physical activities. . . . He maintains that he cannot perform pre-accident heavy carpentry work or heavy landscaping as he did prior to the accident. However, he continues to be able to perform household chores, such as mowing the lawn, cooking, and doing laundry. He continues to be able to golf on a limited basis, and to go mountain biking with his brother. While his jaw pain may impact his ability to eat certain foods in a particular way, he does not have difficulty eating in general.
In addition, plaintiff has not presented any evidence that he is actually physically unable to participate in a wider range of activities. . . . Rather, plaintiff’s reported inability to engage in some of his pre-accident activities appears to be entirely self imposed limitations based on pain. . . . Under the circumstances, while plaintiff has shown that the accident has had some effect on his activities, he has not shown that ‘the course or trajectory of [his] normal life’ has been affected so as to meet the threshold requirement.”
