Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 93430; Published
Judges Walsh, Weaver, and Warshawsky; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 166 Mich App 552; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
Canadian Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals followed its holding in Sibley v DAIIE, 156 Mich App 519; Iv granted, 428 Mich 908 (1987) and held that the reimbursement provisions of the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, Canada are similar to those of the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) and therefore, plaintiff’s tort recovery against the responsible third party obligated a reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits previously paid. Further, this reimbursement of economic damage out of a non-economic tort recovery did not give plaintiff a claim against the no-fault carrier for repayment of the amount.
Plaintiff was injured in Michigan while driving his Canadian employer's truck plaintiff received no-fault benefits from the defendant insurer, and as a Canadian employee, also received benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario. Plaintiff’s no-fault benefits were offset pursuant to §3109 by his workers' compensation benefits. When plaintiff made a third party recovery, the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board was reimbursed out of that non-economic damage recovery Plaintiff’s effort to seek repayment of the reimbursement amounts as an "allowable expense" under §3107 was rejected by the trial court. The Court of Appeals, after noting the similarity between the Federal Employees Compensation Act at issue in Sibley, supra, and the Ontario Workers' Compensation Act, followed the ruling in Sibley and held that plaintiff's tort recovery obligated him to make reimbursement without a concomitant right of repayment from the no-fault insurer.
