Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87790; Published
Judges Sullivan, Allan, and Kallman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 156 Mich App 669; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
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 affirmed summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on his claim to entitlement to work loss benefits. Plaintiff was employed as a brakeman for the railroad. After injury in an automobile accident in March 1982, he continued to experience problems requiring treatment for neck, back and elbow pain. During September 1982, plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for eight days during which time he was placed in traction, given a myelogram, and physical therapy. At that time, it was determined that surgery was not advisable. In early 1983, plaintiff’s treating physician determined that he was able to return to work with restrictions. However, the railroad refused to allow plaintiff to return to work until he was off pain medication. Railroad rules required that an employee be able to work without restrictions and without taking pain medication.
In September 1985, plaintiff filed a motion for summary disposition alleging that defendant had failed to present any evidence to establish that plaintiff would be allowed to return to his employment at the railroad. In response, defendant filed affidavits and deposition evidence of its experts who testified that the pain medication plaintiff was taking was not "medically warranted for his treatment." The trial judge granted plaintiff’s partial summary disposition as to his entitlement to three years of work loss benefits. The trial court found that although defendant's experts thought plaintiff’s medication was not appropriate, this was a collateral issue which did not affect the fact that plaintiff had followed his doctor's treatment, and as a consequence, was kept from returning to work.
The Court of Appeals noted that the doctors' depositions clearly raised a factual dispute as to the medical necessity of plaintiff having taken pain medication. Whether this factual issue is a "no-fault issue which properly should go to the jury,” has never been decided. In reliance upon the decisions in MacDonald v State Farm (Item No. 775) and Ouellette v Kenelay (Item No. 847), the Court held that work loss benefits compensate an injured person for income he would have received "but for" the accident Based upon this language, the Court reasoned that "but for" the automobile accident, plaintiff would not have begun treatment with his doctor who prescribed pain medication, and "but for" the pain medication, plaintiff would have returned to work. Since plaintiff therefore suffered work loss as a direct consequence of his injuries, the defenses raised on the basis of the defendant's medical experts do not raise a factual question as to the actual loss of wages flowing from the accident.
