Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #287644; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, Cavanagh, and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Important Body Function 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals dealt with the statutory definition of serious impairment of body function, as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 reversed the trial court’s Order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages.
The plaintiff in this case sustained undefined neck and back injuries in a motor vehicle accident. According to the Court of Appeals, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s initial impairment, and the type and length of her treatment were not extensive. The court noted that plaintiff did not immediately seek medical treatment and the accident was not severe. In addition, the court noted that her treatment consisted of one physical therapy session, two cervical epidural steroid injections, and treatment with pain and muscle relaxants. However, the court noted that plaintiff’s residual impairments appear to be permanent and have affected all aspects of her life. The court noted that before the accident, plaintiff performed her own yard work, her own housework with occasional help, baked, and engaged in activities with her grandchildren. Since the accident, plaintiff no longer performs her own yard work and receives help with her housework from her granddaughter three times a week. The court also noted that although plaintiff continues to see her grandchildren, she now has trouble reading to them and putting together puzzles with them for long periods of time due to her neck pain. In addition, the court noted that she now has trouble reading for pleasure because of her neck pain. Even though she can control the pain with medication, she now must lie down if it is not yet time to take the medication. The court further noted that before the accident plaintiff would frequently go camping, but since the accident she has only camped twice. Moreover, the court found that plaintiff no longer goes on walks because she is afraid her back or neck will “give out.” Finally, plaintiff testified that she and her husband no longer enjoyed marital relations as they had before the accident. The court then noted that plaintiff’s physician submitted a letter stating that plaintiff needed attendant care services for house and yard work and, therefore, this constituted a physician-imposed limitation on her activities. Considering plaintiff’s limitations, the court determined that the trial court improperly determined that plaintiff had not established a threshold injury. In this regard, the court stated:
“The nature and extent of the initial impairment, and the type and length of treatment plaintiff required, were not extensive here. Plaintiff did not seek treatment immediately, and her crash was not severe. In addition, her entire course of treatment appears to have consisted, apart from diagnostic tests, of one physical therapy session of a treatment regimen that was ended ‘for personal reasons,’ two cervical epidural steroid injections, and treatment with pain and muscle relaxant medications.
However, plaintiff’s residual impairments appear to be permanent, and reportedly have affected all aspects of her life. Plaintiff performed her own yard work before the accident, but had not attempted to perform yard work since the accident, leaving it to her grandson. She routinely performed her own housework prior to the accident, with occasional help from her granddaughter; after the accident, she received help from her granddaughter three times per week. Her granddaughter cooked for her on Sunday morning, and dusted and vacuumed. Plaintiff still cooked, but apparently had not tried to bake since the accident because she was afraid that her neck would bother her. As to other activities, plaintiff testified that she and her grandchildren used to do everything together. Since the accident, she continued to see them frequently. However, she maintained that she now had trouble reading to them or doing puzzles with them for lengthy periods because of her neck pain. She had trouble reading for pleasure for long periods, also due to neck pain. She could apparently control the pain with medication, but would have to lie down if it was not time for her to take a pain pill. Since the accident she had not used the treadmill because she was afraid that she would get hurt. She used to go camping before the accident; since the accident, she had camped twice. She did not go on walks because she thought that her back or neck would give out. Plaintiff also testified that she and her husband no longer enjoyed marital relations as they had in the past.
The trial court’s determination that this plaintiff did not meet the threshold of injury was solely based upon a finding that her restrictions were self-imposed. . . . Plaintiff argues that her physician’s letter stating that plaintiff needed attendant care services for house and yard work constitutes a physician-imposed limitation on her activities. The letter does not explicitly restrict plaintiff’s activity, but it is a reasonable inference that if a physician prescribes attending care services for house cleaning, laundry, shopping and garden work he has determined that plaintiff cannot do these things without assistance.”
