Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 74662; Published
Judges T. M. Burns, Shepherd, and Warshawsky; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 141 Mich App 29; 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:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion deals with the question of the extent to which a no-fault insurer can claim a setoff under §3109 of the statute when the injured person redeems a workers' compensation claim arising out of the same accident.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the analysis employed in the previous decisions of Gregory v Transamerica (Item No. 792), Luth v DAIIE (Item No. 496) and Moore v Travelers Insurance (Item No. 465), and held that where a redemption agreement is entered into in good faith, the maximum amount that the no-fault carrier can setoff under §3109(1) of the act is the amount plaintiff receives under the redemption agreement. The court cited sound policy for its holding. First, a contrary result would curtail the use of redemptions in work-related accidents and compel the worker to fully pursue a workers' comp claim. This could result in lengthy delays. Second, a circuit court would be required to determine the amount that a plaintiff would be able to recover in a workers' comp claim in order to calculate the setoff. This would invade the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' comp bureau. Therefore, the defendant PIP carrier was only entitled to claim an offset not to exceed the plaintiff’s redemption.
[Author's Comment: The court also made a comment on a related issue regarding the reasonability of certain medical expenses which might be significant. The court stated, "the facts show that the medical tests and treatment were reasonably necessary to ensure a proper diagnosis. The trial court could properly determine that these expenses were reasonable." The court did not elaborate as to what medical tests were involved. However, the comment would clearly imply that even those medical tests which are negative but were run to "rule out" various conditions possibly related to an accident are recoverable as allowable expenses under §3107(a).]
