Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 239205; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Murphy, and Wilder; 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 (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function, and remanded for further proceedings for determination of whether plaintiff’s injuries affect her general ability to lead her normal life.
Plaintiff sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Two years after her accident, she continued to have pain in her wrists, knees, left hip, and shoulder. She also developed low back pain and began to have approximately two severe headaches per week. She returned to her regular work schedule, but the injuries have kept her from gardening, roller blading, canoeing, riding a bicycle, cross-country skiing, playing volley ball and soccer, and painting her house and stenciling. Sexual relations with her husband have also diminished.
The trial court found that plaintiff’s impairment was objectively manifested, but granted summary disposition on the basis that her impairments did not “significantly alter” her ability to lead a normal life.
On appeal, the defendant argued that there was no objective manifestation of plaintiff’s injuries. The Court of Appeals held that an MRI report showed minimal joint diffusion of the right knee, and a subsequent MRI of the lumbar spine, showed degenerative changes at L4-L5 and L5-S1 discs, without evidence of focal disc protrusion, but that there was broad-based bulging. A left shoulder MRI showed downsloping acromium process. The Court of Appeals held that these MRI findings established a physical basis for plaintiff’s complaints that were medically identifiable and, therefore, an objective manifestation.
In the present case, the court held:
“The injuries affect plaintiff’s ability to lead her normal life. However, we must remand for a determination of whether they affect her general ability to do so. Because ‘the focus must be on multiple aspects of the person’s life, i.e., home life, relationships, daily activities, recreational activities, and employment, and not solely on one area of the person’s life such as employment.’ Kreiner (On Remand), supra, at 689, the fact that her employment has not been adversely affected is not determinative. The extent to which continuous pain may affect her home life and relationships is not adequately reflected in the record. Also, while the record establishes that sexual relations are less frequent as the result of her injuries, it is not clear from the record the extent to which she previously engaged in the recreational activities that she can no longer do. In assessing the extent of the injury, a court may compare the plaintiff’s lifestyle before and after the injury. May v Sommerfield (After Remand), 240 Mich App 504, 506; 617 NW2d 920 (2000). If she rarely engaged in these activities, it could not be said that her current inability to do so has affected her general ability to lead her normal life. In contrast, if she frequently did all the things she can no longer do, one could conclude that the impairment has affected her general ability to lead her normal life.”
