Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 185595; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Corrigan, and Benson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Rehabilitation [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs claim that she was entitled to be reimbursed for transportation costs she incurred in traveling to and from her place of employment on the theory that her employment was "rehabilitation" within the meaning of §3107(l)(a) of the no-fault statute.
In rejecting this claim, the court stated,
"While vocational rehabilitation is an 'allowable expense' under MCLA 500.3107(l)(a), we find that plaintiffs employment does not constitute rehabilitation under the no-fault act. ...In the context of this case, 'rehabilitation' means counseling or training used to prepare an individual for useful employment.... These facts do not support plaintiff's claim that her employment was vocational rehabilitation. Plaintiff was employed by the YMCA in a part-time position for which she was paid ... Gainful employment is the goal of rehabilitation, and is therefore not rehabilitation in and of itself. Accordingly, plaintiff's employment was not vocational rehabilitation for which she was entitled to be compensated."