Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259170; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Murphy, and Hood; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment [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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 71-year-old plaintiff in this case sustained injuries to her left shoulder, left thorax, left chest and rib cage, including a bulging disc at the C4-C5 and C5-C6 levels, for which she received physical therapy and was treated with chiropractic care, pain medication and monthly epidural steroid injections.
On appeal, plaintiff first claims the trial court improperly found that she failed to show that her injuries were objectively manifested. The Court of Appeals agreed in part, finding that an MRI taken of plaintiff’s spine, which revealed accentuation of cervical lordosis and thoracic kyphosis, as well as disc bulging at the C4-C5 and C5-C6 levels, was sufficient to establish an objective manifestation of these injuries. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff argues that an MRI, taken several months following the accident, is sufficient to satisfy the objective manifestation requirement. The MRI showed an ‘accentuation of cervical lordosis and thoracic kyphosis.’ The MRI also showed ‘mild spondylotic changes of the cervical spine, including right-sided disc bulging at the C4-C5 and C5-C6 levels with associated foraminal narrowing.’ Some of plaintiff’s physicians diagnosed these injuries as ‘secondary’ to the August 2000 accident.
This Court has held that x-ray results showing a loss of cervical lordosis or spinal curvature constitute objective manifestations of injury. . . . Similarly, because the MRI in the instant case showed an accentuation of plaintiff’s cervical lordosis and thoracic kyphosis, these conditions were objectively manifested.”
However, the court found that plaintiff failed to establish an objective manifestation of the purported injuries to her shoulder, chest and rib cage. Although her physician diagnosed plaintiff with a traumatic C-T-L sprain, intercostal neuralgia, costal contritis, soft tissue contusion to the right breast resulting in cancer and chronic pain, plaintiff failed to provide evidence which satisfied the objective manifestation requirement under Kreiner.
The court next addressed plaintiff’s assertion that her injuries have affected her normal life. Plaintiff testified that since the accident, she could no longer travel, perform housework, garden, exercise, bike ride, drive, or engage in intimate activities with her husband. Plaintiff is under doctor-imposed restrictions, but those restrictions are not related to her objectively manifested injuries. Therefore, the court concluded that her argument regarding her residual impairments was unpersuasive and affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff’s argument regarding residual impairments is unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s restrictions are either self-imposed or relate to alleged injuries for which there is no objective manifestation. The only objectively manifested injuries are the ‘accentuation of cervical lordosis and thoracic kyphosis,’ and the bulging discs. Although Dr. Kraynek has restricted plaintiff’s activities, essentially confining plaintiff to her home, the restrictions relate to injuries other than those manifested by the March 2001 MRI (i.e., a C-T-L sprain, headaches, nerve pain, soft tissue injuries, and breast cancer). No physician has limited plaintiff’s activities as a result of her abnormal cervical lordosis, thoracic kyphosis or bulging discs. As already noted, self-imposed restrictions based solely on subjective pain, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, are insufficient to establish the extent of the residual impairment. . . . Based on the evidence presented in this case, the trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiff’s injuries did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life.”
