Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 242017; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Saad, and Kelly; 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 (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a trial court grant of summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment of body function, based upon the conclusion that the impairments had not interfered with plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. The evidence in this case was that the plaintiff had sustained a neck injury which produced medical records characterized as “disc degeneration changes at C5-6.” The court concluded that this evidence satisfied the requirement of an objectively identifiable injury of an important body function.
Plaintiff’s evidence of the affect of the injuries included testimony that he was in a great deal of pain from his injuries, and that his injuries interfered with the movement of his neck. He also testified that he had not had a good night’s sleep in a long time because of the pain in his neck. He also testified that his bicep twitched, sometimes for a week straight. The plaintiff also complained of pain which interfered with his ability to exercise.
On the above evidence, the Court of Appeals held that these impairments had not interfered with plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, “plaintiff’s life seems to have changed little as a result of the collision.” The court noted that plaintiff performs the same work as he did before the collision, and he acknowledges that, due to his injuries, he is not under any limitations or restrictions in his work as a deputy sheriff. Plaintiff also acknowledged that he could perform all of the household tasks that he could do before the collision. He also continued to vacation and continued to exercise as he did before the collision, though he could not exercise as much as he could before.
Based on the evidence plaintiff produced, the only two activities that appeared to have been affected by plaintiff’s injury are his exercise and his ability to get a good night’s sleep. While one’s general ability to lead his normal life can be affected by an injury that has an impact on his ability to engage in one activity, that activity must “play a significant role in that individual’s normal life.”
