Muskegon County Circuit Court; Docket No. 82-1658-CK
Judge James M. Graves, Jr.
Official Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Mitigation Requirement [§3107(1)(b)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Conduct Establishing Unreasonable Delay or Denial [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this significant written Opinion, Judge Graves ruled that the wage loss provisions of §3107(b) of the Act, "do not require a plaintiff to mitigate his damages by actively seeking work other than the job which he held at the time of his injury." The Court went on to state, "The statute provides plaintiff an absolute right to. work loss benefits computed as to the job he had when he was injured. The holding of the Court is consistent with the reason articulated in Nawrocki v Hawkeye Security in which the court noted that it was not bound to apply certain common law principles in explicating the Michigan No-Fault Act in the absence of legislative inclusion of the principles in the act itself."
Judge Graves also went on to hold that the plaintiff was under no duty to cooperate with defendant's second rehabilitation counselor which counselor was hired after the defendant had improperly terminated plaintiff’s work loss benefits. In this regard, the Court stated, "Defendant terminated plaintiff’s benefits because defendant believed that plaintiff was not cooperating with the vocational rehabilitation counselor. However, the Court does not find such a belief to be reasonable or to be substantiated by the record. The Court finds that plaintiff fully cooperated with the first rehabilitation counselor and that she stated that defendant could not be rehabilitated. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s benefits prior to hiring a second rehabilitation counselor to work with plaintiff. Plaintiff stated he would work with the second counselor after the benefit payments resumed. Plaintiff’s position was not unreasonable. Defendant cannot breach its contractual and statutory duty to pay benefits and still expect plaintiff to fulfill any alleged duties to cooperate with defendant's retained rehabilitation counselors."
Judge Graves went on to hold that the defendant's termination of benefits was "unreasonable." He noted that the defendant made no effort to contact the various physicians involved in the case as to their conflicting medical reports regarding plaintiff's disability so as to permit defendant to determine the true status of plaintiff’s medical condition. Because of the defendant's unreasonable conduct, plaintiff was permitted to recover attorney fees pursuant to §3148 of the statute, which were to be determined pursuant to a separate hearing which considers the six-part test adopted by the Supreme Court in Wood v DAIIE (item number 535).
