Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 140647; Unpublished
Judges Connor, Holbrook, and McDonald; 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)]
Work Loss Benefits: Loss of Earning Capacity [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant no-fault insurer had properly refused to purchase a taxicab for plaintiff when plaintiff contended that the ownership of a taxicab was a necessary "vocational rehabilitation expense" because a personally owned taxi was necessary to increase plaintiffs current wages to his pre-accident wage level.
In this case, the defendant paid no-fault wage loss benefits to plaintiff for three years. After the three year wage benefit period, plaintiff returned to driving a taxicab. Because the cab was owned by someone else, plaintiff earned 40% of his fares. If he owned a cab, he would earn 70% of his fares. The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to demand purchase of the taxicab as a vocational expense because this was nothing more than an attempt to extend work loss benefits beyond three years, or to recover for lost earning capacity. The court stated, "Because the Legislature did not intend for work loss benefits to extend beyond three years or to allow a recovery of lost earning capacity. We find it reasonable to conclude that the Legislature did not intend an injured person to recover lost earning capacity under the guise of rehabilitative expense. Plaintiff’s request to have the defendant purchase a cab is more analogous to asking the defendant to increase his earning capacity than it is to vocational rehabilitation. We conclude as a matter of law that the cab was not reasonable and necessary as a rehabilitation expense. Thus, the circuit court did not err in granting the defendant summary disposition."
