Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #269084; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Cavanagh, 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)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 defendants on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a concussion, lacerations, a broken right fibula, a broken left pinky finger, and deep vein thrombosis. Due to his injuries, plaintiff was off work for three months. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff was returned to work without restrictions and that his treatment was not significant or long-term. It further noted that although plaintiff complained of residual pain, he worked full-time and testified that he worked through the pain without taking medication. Although the plaintiff argued that his pain would become more significant over time, the court determined there was nothing in the medical record to substantiate this assertion. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff’s treatment was not significant or long-term. Although plaintiff complains of residual pain and numbness in his right leg that has been verified by an electromyography examination (EMG), he continues to work full time and testified that he works through the pain without taking medication and has never turned down work as a result of his injuries. Plaintiff argues that, over time, the pain he experiences will become more significant in his line of work. However, there is nothing in the medical record to substantiate that plaintiff’s injuries will become more severe over time.”
