Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 84444; Unpublished
Judges Bronson, Beasley, and Horn; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
State Workers Compensation Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant by the trial court of summary disposition in favor of defendant, finding that defendant was not bound by the redemption agreement whereby plaintiff redeemed her worker's compensation claim. The trial court held that the no-fault insurer could continue to setoff against no-fault benefits the full amount of workers' compensation benefits which plaintiff would have been entitled to receive but for the redemption.
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident in the course of her employment. In May 1981, she redeemed her workers' compensation claim for $10,000. Under the agreement, the lump sum payment redeemed all liability of the workers' compensation carrier for medical and wage loss benefits past, present and future. The no-fault insurer thereafter denied that it was liable to plaintiff for the full amount of the personal protection benefits, and asserted that under §3109(1) of the No-Fault Act, it was entitled to a setoff of all workers' compensation payments required to be paid to plaintiff, despite the redemption of her claim. Plaintiff argued that the amount actually received under the redemption agreement determined the amount of setoff.
In reliance upon the recent Supreme Court decision in Gregory v Transamerica (Item No. 934), the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not entitled to full wage loss benefits under the circumstances of this case. The Court held that the insurer was required to pay only the excess future wage loss benefits, provided plaintiff demonstrates that the amount to which she is entitled exceeds the workers' compensation benefits she would have received had she not redeemed her workers' compensation claim. The Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that there must be an allocation between medical and wage loss benefits in order to determine the correct amount of setoff. The amount received by plaintiff under the redemption agreement is irrelevant to a determination of the setoff under §3109(1). The Court held that defendant was not liable for plaintiff’s future medical expenses since those expenses would have been covered by the workers' compensation but for the redemption agreement.
