DAVID ERICKSON V CONNIE MARIE EVANS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DAVID ERICKSON, UNPUBLISHED February 20, 2007 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 272328 Kent Circuit Court LC No. 05-006424-NI CONNIE MARIE EVANS, Defendant-Appellee, and CONTINENTAL TIRE NORTH AMERICA, INC., and LADONNA EVANS, Defendants. Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Donofrio, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition to defendant Connie Marie Evans (hereafter “defendant”) in this tort action arising from a motor vehicle related accident. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E). Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant with regard to his claim that he suffered a serious impairment of body function based on its conclusion that his injuries did not affect his general ability to lead his normal life. We disagree. We review a grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) de novo. Greene v AP Products, Ltd, 475 Mich 502, 507; 717 NW2d 855 (2006). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Plaintiff relies largely on the extent of his injuries and his inability to work for a threemonth period as evidence that his injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life. However, in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 135-136; 683 NW2d 611 (2004), our Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff had not suffered an affect on his general ability to lead his normal life despite having suffered injuries requiring surgery and not having worked for eight weeks. The Court expressed that these “temporary limitations” did not affect the plaintiff’s -1- general ability to lead his normal life. Id. at 136. The Court also indicated that “[w]hile an injury need not be permanent, it must be of sufficient duration to affect the course of a plaintiff’s life.” Id. at 135. Plaintiff’s hospitalization and other medical treatment and his essentially threemonth absence from work are closely analogous to the limitations on a plaintiff in Kreiner, supra, and were not of sufficient duration to affect his general ability to lead his normal life. Beyond the extent of his injuries and temporary inability to work, plaintiff relies on statements in his answer to an interrogatory and in his deposition expressing that he has been limited in riding motorcycles, walking, and doing household chores. But none of these assertions are supported by evidence of medically imposed restrictions on plaintiff’s activities. Thus, we must effectively disregard those claims because “[s]elf-imposed restrictions, as opposed to physician-imposed restrictions, based on real or perceived pain” do not establish the extent of residual impairment for purposes of evaluating whether a plaintiff’s general ability to conduct the course of his or her life has been affected. Kreiner, supra at 133 n 17. Affirmed. /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald /s/ Pat M. Donofrio -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.