Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259487; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Cavanagh, and Servitto; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428] interpreting the statutory definition of serious impairment of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 judgment for defendant after a bench trial on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses. The plaintiff in this case alleged she had sustained posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and as a result she was no longer able to play basketball, that her study skills were impaired and that her ability to socialize was affected which in turn reduced her circle of friends. In affirming the trial court order, the Court of Appeals noted that although the PTSD disrupted plaintiff’s normal life, it did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, plaintiff’s trauma, including her PTSD symptoms that existed for a considerable amount of time after the accident, may be serious. However, the trial court reasonably determined that her PTSD did not change her post-accident life enough to affect her general ability to lead her normal life. After her accident plaintiff did suffer a temporary drop in grades, social activities, and interpersonal relationships. Since then, however, plaintiff acquired and maintained a job, was accepted to college, had a long-term boyfriend, and went on family outings. Case law provides that even diminished activities do not necessarily satisfy the statutory prerequisites. . . . In the present case, plaintiff’s life was definitely disrupted as a result of her accident. She no longer played basketball, had diminished studying abilities for a period of about two years, and narrowed the circle of people with whom she interacted. Nonetheless, she was still able to attend school, improve her academic performance, and planned to attend college. As such, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff’s impairment did not affect her general ability to lead her normal life and, thus, did not constitute a serious impairment of body function.”
