Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 52980; Published
Judges Danhof, Bronson, and Gillis; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 113 Mich App 289; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State And Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
Federal Workers Compensation Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Federal Workers Compensation Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Bronson, the Court of Appeals held that when an insured person is eligible to receive workers' compensation wage loss benefits under federal law, but elects to use sick and vacation leave instead of obtaining the workers' comp benefits, §3109(1) of the No-Fault Act does not require that the amount of workers' compensation benefits the insured could have received be setoff against no-fault benefits otherwise payable because of the injury. In so holding, the Court noted the "peculiarities of the federal compensation system" which requires the employee to consume accrued leave time prior to receiving federal workers' comp or to receive workers' comp immediately, in which case the accrued leave time is frozen and remains on account The Court noted that a federal employee stands in a different position than does a non-federal employee in Michigan. If the federal employee elects to use his accrued sick and annual leave time, then he does not receive workers' comp benefits. If a deduction under §3109(1) is allowed for the no-fault carrier for those amounts that could have been received, the federal employee would receive less compensation when compared to other non-federal Michigan employees in the same circumstances. The Court also noted that a Michigan employee injured in an accident covered by the no-fault statute would be entitled to receive workers' comp benefits plus any accrued sick and annual leave time and the no-fault carrier would only be able to claim a deduction for the workers' comp benefits, not the sick and leave benefits. In this regard, the Court noted in footnote number 2, "We agree with the lower court's construction of this provision. The court determined that the loss of bargained for sick and vacation time due to the injury, constitutes a loss of income within the meaning of the provision."
