Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 69675; Published
Judges Allen, Maher, and Bell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 144 Mich App 667; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Relevance of Wage Continuation Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (UMVARA)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals relied upon a specific provision in the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (UMVARA) and held that wage continuation payments received by an injured employee from his employer could not be deducted from no-fault wage loss benefits under §3107(b) for the reason that such benefits are not received for work the injured person performed after the accident Section l(a)(5)(ii) of UMVARA states:
"An employed person who loses time from work he would have performed had he not been injured has suffered work loss even if his employer continues his wages under a formal wage continuation plan or as a gratuity. Employer payments in this situation are collateral source payments rather than wages since they are not payments for work done during the time the employee was absent."
The court also relied on the Supreme Court's opinion in Jarosz v DAIIE (Item No. 702), wherein the Supreme Court held that the "intent of the Legislature was to define work loss under § 3107 as income loss attributable solely to the inability to work without regard to nonwork-related sources of income."
The holding in this case is virtually identical to the holding and rationale of the Ingham County Circuit Court decision in Burch v INA (Item No. 647).