Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264678; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Hoekstra, and Markey; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function,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 back injuries in an automobile accident which were diagnosed a month later as cervical, lumbar radiculitis with radiculopathy. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was being treated for multiple medical problems including low back pain and various mental disabilities. Plaintiff’s treating physician restricted his household activities and prescribed pain medication and physical therapy. About a year and a half after the accident, an MRI revealed disc herniations in plaintiff’s cervical and lumbosacral spine.
In affirming the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s assertion that because his physician had restricted him from certain activities, he suffered a serious impairment of body function. Moreover, the court noted plaintiff failed to show the extent to which his normal life had been affected. Although plaintiff stated that since the accident he can no longer take walks, shop, cook or clean, he failed to state the extent to which he participated in these activities. Without such evidence, the court reasoned it was impossible to determine the extent to which the impairment has affected the course of plaintiff’s normal life. In this regard the court stated:
“Here, plaintiff offered only limited evidence concerning his life before the accident, testifying during deposition that he previously enjoyed such activities as shopping and walking, and could cook and clean for himself. Although plaintiff further testified that he no longer participates in these activities, he offered no evidence concerning the extent to which he participated in these activities before the accident. Also absent is any evidence indicating a prognosis for eventual recovery. It was incumbent upon plaintiff to produce such evidence in the face of defendants’ motion for summary disposition, . . . and, absent such evidence, the record simply does not demonstrate a change in the course or trajectory of plaintiff’s ‘preimpairment life’ sufficient to meet the serious impairment threshold. . . . This remains true despite the restrictions on household activity imposed by plaintiff’s doctors. . . . Because the record before us, which includes evidence of physical and mental disabilities pre-existing the impairment at issue, is insufficient to demonstrate any significant post-impairment change in the course or trajectory of plaintiff’s life, summary disposition was proper.”
