Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #269928; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Saad, and Schuette; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained disc herniations, radicular symptoms, left ulnar neuropathy, severe headaches, mental pain and anxiety, and psychological harm for which she was completely off of work for two months, followed by a reduction in her work hours. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff claimed she could no longer engage in sexual intercourse, attend basketball games, bowl, shop, or cook, these restrictions were self-imposed. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that her life was significantly different after the accident than it was before. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“[W]e are unpersuaded by Hayward’s claims that she can no longer spend time with her husband, attend basketball games, go bowling, shop for clothes more than once each month, shop for food more than once or twice every two weeks, cook more than three times per week, or visit with her nieces and nephews because of her pain. In regard to these activities, Hayward’s life now is not significantly different than before the accident. According to Hayward, she and her husband were separated off and on, and she had only lived with him for five out of the previous 17 months. Also, Hayward does not claim that she had shopped more frequently in the past. Moreover, the limitations on her activities are self-imposed. No doctor has ever restricted her from doing the things she did before, such as engaging in sexual intercourse, attending basketball games, bowling, shopping, or cooking.”
