68th District Court (Genesee County); Docket No. 6B-3600; Unpublished
Judge Kenneth M. Siegel; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This written opinion by Judge Kenneth Siegel addresses the issue concerning whether an attendance bonus falls into the classification of wages which would be covered by the no-fault work loss benefit provisions of §3107(b).
In this case of first impression, Judge Siegel concluded that the attendance bonus was for work actually performed, and as a matter of fairness and public policy, the injured employee should be entitled to work loss benefits attributable to the loss of an attendance bonus resulting from his injury.
The attendance bonus here had more of the characteristic of wages than a fringe benefit in that it is taxable income payable directly to the employee upon fulfillment of the attendance bonus requirements of the bonus plan. Further, evidence demonstrated that the attendance bonus program did not fall within the fringe benefit section of the employee contract in force at the time of plaintiff s accident. The court relied in part on the case of Kawczyk v DAIIE (Item No. 697) for its decision.
