Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 196101; Published
Judges Saad, Wahls, and Gage; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 231 Mich App 172; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons / Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Saad, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor for wage loss benefits under the temporarily unemployed provisions of §3107a for the reason that plaintiff was not, as a matter of law, "temporarily unemployed" within the statutory meaning of that provision. In this case, plaintiff had not worked for nearly four years before his automobile accident. His pre-automobile accident unemployment was due to a serious work injury that eventually resulted in the termination of his employment. As a part of his vocational rehabilitation, plaintiff enrolled in and completed a computer operation course and regularly met with a vocational rehabilitation counselor. For five or six months after the conclusion of his rehabilitation program, plaintiff sent out resumes. However, for the eight month period before his accident, plaintiff sent out no resumes and did nothing objectively to find employment. He was still drawing workers' compensation at the time of his automobile accident.
In holding that plaintiff was not temporarily unemployed as a matter of law, the Court of Appeals stated:
"Although unemployed at the time of the accident, an insured may be found to be temporarily unemployed where he is or would have been but for the accident, actively seeking employment and there is evidence showing the unemployed status would not have been permanent if the injury had not occurred. However, a bare assertion of intent to secure employment without any corroboration of such intent or actions taken to obtain employment during the period of unemployment is insufficient to render an injured party 'temporarily unemployed.'... Here the record shows that plaintiff sought employment several months prior to the accident, but plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that he was actively seeking employment at the time of the accident.... Plaintiff's statement of intention to begin a new career as a CAD operator is insufficient to establish that he was temporarily unemployed. . . . Not having been employed for four years and not having sought employment for eight months, it defies logic and is contrary to the statutory language to conclude that plaintiff was temporarily unemployed." (emphasis added)
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.
