Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 102286 (on remand); Published
Judges Hood, Gillis, and Sawyer; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 164 Mich App 20; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Cranes) [§3101(2)(e)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam opinion, which occurred on remand after the Supreme Court's decision in Bialochowski v Cross Concrete (Item No. 1021), the Court held that a mobile crane was a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of §3101(2)(c) and §3105(1), thereby entitling plaintiff to recovery of no-fault benefits when he was injured shortly after the crane had finished its "pick." Plaintiff’s injury occurred after the crane boom had been locked in place and the crane driven for 100 yards across the roadway where the counterweights were to be removed in order to make the crane ready for highway travel. Plaintiff was injured during removal of the counterweights. The Court held, "The crane was not in an immobile state performing a 'pick' as in Johnston v Hartford (Item No. 709). Rather, the crane was traveling, and was stopped only to remove the counterweights. Thus, the injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle." The Court then turned to the second issue in the case which involved the right of defendant to claim a setoff for all medical expenses paid by plaintiff’s workers' compensation carrier. Citing the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Gregory v Tronsamerica (Item No. 934), the Court held that setoff is allowed for the amount of workers' compensation benefits that would have been paid by the workers' compensation carrier absent a redemption. In the case at bar, the record was not clear what medical expenses would have been paid by the workers' compensation carrier. Therefore, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff’s workers' compensation carrier would have paid for approximately $2,900 of chiropractic treatment. If the amount would have been paid by the compensation carrier but for the redemption, then the no-fault insurer is entitled to an offset.
