Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 203479; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Jr., Gribbs, and Danhof; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Rehabilitation [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Charge Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion dealing with plaintiff’s claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits pursuant to §3107(1)(a) of the no-fault statute, the Court of Appeals held that a question of fact had been raised entitling plaintiff to jury determination of his claim. In this case, plaintiff, who lost both legs and the partial use of one arm in an automobile accident, was rendered competitively unemployable on a full-time basis. Plaintiff then undertook a program of "self-education" wherein plaintiff learned how to work with stained glass. Plaintiff and his wife then became proprietors of a business known as "Daschke Stained Glass Parlor." Plaintiff claimed he incurred expenses of approximately $80,000, and estimated future expenses of approximately $80,000 to implement this "self-employment plan." Plaintiff claimed that these expenses were incurred and were reasonably necessary for his vocational rehabilitation, and thus compensable under §3107(l)(a). The defendant sought summary disposition of plaintiff s claim on the basis that it was time barred and also because it was not a proper expense for vocational rehabilitation. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition and the Court of Appeals reversed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals stated:
"Plaintiff has raised a question of fact whether he incurred expenses related to his vocational rehabilitation and has presented a genuine issue of fact under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Whether plaintiff's expenses were reasonable and reasonably necessary products, services [or] accommodations 'for his rehabilitation is also a question of fact for the jury. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition."
The court did, however, affirm the trial court's ruling that these expenses were not compensable as some other form of "allowable expense" under §3107(l)(a). If they were recoverable at all, they were recoverable as an expense of vocational rehabilitation. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
