Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Conley v Associated General Insurance Company; (COA-UNP, 12/22/1988; RB #1210)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 103360; Unpublished  
Judges Kelly, Sullivan, and Shamo; Unanimous; Per Curiam    
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt    


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable    


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition awarding plaintiff work loss benefits. Plaintiff sustained a neck injury in a minor motor vehicle accident in June, 1983. She received uncontested medical and wage loss benefits from AGI until September 1984. At that time, plaintiff’s personal physician, at her request, released her to return to work. AGI contended that plaintiff was, therefore, no longer entitled to work loss benefits.

When plaintiff returned to work, she was sent to the company physician for a determination as to whether she could work handling equipment on the assembly line. The shop physician concluded that the plaintiff should not return to work, and advised the company that plaintiff should never return to line work.

In reliance upon the Court of Appeals' decision in Lenart v DAIIE, 156 Mich App 669 (1986), the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was entitled to work loss benefits and entered summary disposition in her favor. AGI's contention that there were factual questions concerning plaintiff’s capacity to work and the competence of the company physician's examination of her were held irrelevant under Lenart (Item No. 995). The court held that §3107 compensates the injured person for income she would have received but for the accident. Here, as in Lenart, supra, the plaintiff would not have been prevented from working but for the accident which then resulted in the shop physician's advice that plaintiff not return to line work. The court held that this situation was similar to the "work rule" in Lenart where a railroad employee could not return to work because of company rules requiring that an employee be able to work without restrictions and without pain medication.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram