Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #268316; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Bandstra, and Zahra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of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 a compression fracture at T-12 for which he was off work approximately 10 months and necessitated that he wear a back brace for six months. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff ultimately returned to work restocking grocery store shelves and failed to show that his impairment had a significant effect on his life. Although plaintiff testified that he was unable to play football or bow hunt, plaintiff failed to provide evidence indicating the importance of these activities in his life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Given the evidence before the trial court, we find no error in the court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s injury did not affect the course or trajectory of his overall normal life. He was unable to work from approximately August 20, 2003, to March 12, 2004, and from January 21, 2005, to April 2005, but ultimately was able to continue his work stocking shelves at a grocery store. . . . With respect to residual impairment, plaintiff reportedly suffered from back pain. He claimed at the time of his deposition that he was unable to engage in recreational activities such as football and bow hunting, but there is no evidence that these activities were important aspects of his life. . . . Moreover, plaintiff’s decision to refrain from those activities is not sufficient to establish residual impairment. Plaintiff did not offer evidence linking his decision not to engage in football or hunting to a physician’s observation of limited movement or a physical incapability of performing some motion. Plaintiff did not present evidence of any physician imposed restrictions. In the absence of physician-imposed restrictions or restrictions that are attributable to physical incapacity, the change in activities does not show residual impairment.”
