Ingham County Circuit Court; Docket No. 93-74235-NF;
Judge William E. Collette; Unpublished
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons / Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion by Judge Collette following a bench trial, the court held that plaintiff was entitled to no-fault wage loss benefits under the temporarily unemployed provisions of §3107a where plaintiff was injured in a car accident shortly after she had been declared eligible to return to work after sustaining an earlier job-related injury 10 months before her automobile accident As of the date of the automobile accident plaintiff had not yet returned to work because her former job was not available to her. She had not succeeded in finding replacement employment in spite of the fact that she had applied for work at numerous locations and had utilized the services of a vocational rehabilitation/ employment counselor for several months prior to her automobile accident Because the plaintiff had not yet been able to find employment she was actually receiving workers' compensation benefits on the date of her automobile accident and continued to receive them for several months thereafter.
Judge Collette rejected the defense argument that §3107a only entitles laid off employees and seasonally unemployed persons to recover wage benefits and that this section is not available to persons who are receiving workers' compensation. The court rejected such a "narrow interpretation" of the term "temporarily unemployed" and specifically found that the evidence in the case demonstrated that plaintiff had been employed regularly since high school at the time she was injured on the job. She had worked faithfully with an employment counselor for some time prior to her automobile accident and had sought employment through a number of sources immediately before her accident and had been declared fit to return to work, with some minor limitations, by her treating physicians. The court further noted:
"The fact that her workers' compensation carrier chose, for whatever reason to pay benefits through April, 1993 is of no consequence to this ruling. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation has its own rules and procedures and various insurers make their own decisions based on those rules. It is not for this court to consider why her carrier chose to continue payments to an employable person when determining if, on the date of the motorcycle accident, Ms. Bambury was temporarily unemployed."
In further support of its conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to benefits under §3107a, the court relied upon Williams v DAIIE, 169 Mich App 301 (1988) (Item No. 1137) and O'Neil v Allstate Insurance Company, 176 Mich App 390 (1989) (Item No. 1225).
