Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 220504;
Judges McDonald, Murphy and Meter; Unanimous
MTLA File No. OP-1510-3. Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault PIP benefits pursuant to the workers’ compensation exclusionary language contained in the parked vehicle provisions of section 3106(2) of the No-Fault Act. Plaintiff in this case sustained a head injury when he slipped and fell from a bulldozer that he had loaded onto a trailer for transport. The injury occurred during the course of plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff was awarded workers’ compensation benefits for a portion of his claimed injury. However, worker’s compensation benefits for that portion of the injury related to subsequent brain surgery to remove a pre-existing brain tumor were denied. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking no-fault benefits for all aspects of his disability. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim under section 3106(2) because workers’ compensation benefits were “available” to plaintiff who sustained this injury in the course of employment while loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on the vehicle. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that workers’ compensation benefits were “available” to plaintiff as a result of this injury, even though plaintiff did not prevail on his entire worker’s compensation claim. Moreover, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the workers’ compensation exclusion was not rendered inapplicable because plaintiff’s injury arose out of the use or operation “of another vehicle.” Regardless of whether the bulldozer was or was not a “motor vehicle,” plaintiff’s fall did not arise from the use of the bulldozer in that it was stationary, parked, shut off and on the bed of the trailer. Therefore, the bulldozer was basically “cargo.” Accordingly, the court stated, “Possessed of the same nature as any inert load awaiting transportation, a box for instance, we decline to find that plaintiff’s fall and injury arose from the use or operation of the bulldozer.”
