Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 74243; Published
Judges Hood, Kelly, and Livo; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 141 Mich App 315; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Workers Comp Liens Regarding Auto Tort Claims [§3116]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion, like the recent decision in Commercial Union v Dockins (Item No. 819) deals with the extent of a workers' compensation lien on an injured person's subsequent tort recovery. The plaintiff in this case was injured in a construction site accident when a large concrete boom permanently attached to a concrete truck collapsed, seriously injuring plaintiff. After plaintiff settled his tort case against the concrete company, the defendant (plaintiff’s workers' comp carrier) sought reimbursement for all workers' comp benefits it paid to plaintiff as a result of this accident. The Court of Appeals first determined that plaintiff’s accident was in fact controlled by the no-fault statute in light of the fact that it arose out of the operation and use of the concrete truck. Therefore, plaintiff was eligible to recover no-fault benefits from the appropriate first-party insurer, and the tortfeasor's liability was limited by §3135. Therefore, the defendant, as plaintiff’s workers' comp carrier, was paying benefits to plaintiff which substituted for no-fault benefits that plaintiff was entitled to receive. Accordingly, the Supreme Court's decision in Great American v Queen (Item No. 376) controlled.
Under the Queen decision, the workers' comp carrier is only entitled to reimbursement out of a tort recovery to the extent that the workers' comp benefits it pays exceed in amount or duration the no-fault benefits that plaintiff would otherwise be entitled to receive. No reimbursement is due for noneconomic losses. Therefore, to the extent that defendant paid workers' comp benefits to plaintiff which exceed no-fault benefits (wage loss beyond three years), it is entitled to reimbursement However, the extent to which plaintiff’s settlement with the tortfeasor includes such damages is a question of fact which must be resolved by the trial court. Therefore, the court held, "Whether Reliance [the comp carrier] is entitled to a credit, because the benefits it paid plaintiff exceed no-fault benefits in amount or duration, involves a question of fact which makes summary judgment inappropriate. Consequently, we remand for a determination of the amount of Reliance's interest in benefits paid or payable over and beyond no-fault benefits. Reliance may not be reimbursed for any medical, wage or other benefits which substitute for no-fault benefits. . . ."
