Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248579; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Jansen, and Bandstra; 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)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (Kreiner Era:1996-2010) [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 defendant on plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim. This appeal was decided without oral argument. Plaintiff sustained a fracture to his leg described as a “depressed lateral tibial plateau fracture of his right knee.” Approximately four months after the accident, plaintiff’s physician found the fracture to be fully healed and advised plaintiff that he could put full weight on his leg and engage in activities as tolerated. Prior to this accident, plaintiff had sustained several other motor vehicle injuries, including a 1989 accident in which plaintiff broke his right femur between the knee and hip and a 1995 accident in which plaintiff suffered a closed head injury, a fractured left knee, a fractured left wrist, a fractured right ankle, a fractured right femur, a fractured right hip, and a fractured right shoulder. Plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries after the 1995 accident, consisting of open reduction internal fixation. Plaintiff was judged to be completely disabled and was receiving Social Security Disability Benefits. In the case at bar, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, concluding there was no evidence that plaintiff’s most recent accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life. In affirming this holding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Plaintiff exhibited an objectively manifested impairment of his knee as a result of the accident. . . . The ability to walk is an important body function. . . . Nevertheless, no evidence created a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injury affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff was able to resume placing full weight on his leg approximately four months after the accident. He stated that after the accident he was required to take more frequent rest breaks during activities and to adjust the manner in which he performed certain activities, but acknowledged that he was able to engage in the activities in which he participated prior to the accident. No physician restricted plaintiff from engaging in recreational activities. Self-imposed restrictions do not establish that an injury has affected a person’s ability to lead his normal life. . . . No evidence showed that plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life was adversely affected by any injury caused by the accident. Absent such evidence, plaintiff was unable to make out a prima facie case that he suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court did not err in determining that the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law under the circumstances, MCL 500.3135(2)(a), and correctly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition.”
