Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 241867; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Griffin and Smolenski; 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)]
Important Body Function 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
In this case, plaintiff sustained a fractured fibula in the motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff was able to walk into the emergency room under his own power, had full range-of-motion and strength in his left ankle, but x-rays showed a fractured fibula. He was placed in a knee immobilizer which he wore for three days. He was restricted from work for the first three weeks, although records show the plaintiff was not employed during this time. Within seven weeks he was completely cleared to participate in all activities and no further treatment was recommended. Plaintiff also claimed that he could no longer participate in recreational sports.
The Court of Appeals held that when looking at one’s general ability to lead a normal life, 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 v Fischer (On Remand), 256 Mich App 680 (2003).
The Court of Appeals held in this case that when comparing plaintiff’s life before and after the accident, the injury did not affect his general ability to lead a normal life. Although plaintiff sustained an objectively manifested injury, and plaintiff’s fibular injury affected an important body function, he did not suffer a serious impairment of body function because his general ability to lead his normal life was not affected.
