Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #284216; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Hoekstra, and Markey; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability for 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [Item No. 2428], and affirmed the trial court’s Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages.
The plaintiff in this case sustained unidentified injuries in a motor vehicle accident which rendered her unable to return to work for a period of two years, which claim she supported with two doctor notes dated a year apart. However, when the trial court granted defendant’s motion, plaintiff was working, taking classes on line, and was able to take care of her own personal hygiene.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals agreed that plaintiff failed to show that her injuries had affected the normal course of her life. In so finding, the court noted that she had returned to work and, although she claimed she was unable to participate in certain activities since the accident, she did not show that her limitations were physician-imposed. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Even if the references to providing a note for plaintiff are treated as evidence of a physician-imposed restriction, we are not persuaded that a different conclusion is warranted. The earliest record of such a note is more than a year after the accident, and the references to the notes do not indicate the periods to which the notes apply. In fact, plaintiff began working in April 2005, which is the same month as the last note. Although plaintiff also testified about changes in her recreational and domestic activities in her February 2006 deposition, she did not present any evidence that the changes were accompanied by ongoing physician-imposed restrictions. . . . [S]elf-imposed restrictions do not establish residual impairment. . . . The evidence of sporadic notes by a physician indicating that plaintiff was unable to work for undisclosed periods of time do not establish that plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life was affected.”
