Ingham County Circuit Court; Docket No. 1-27150-NI; Unpublished
Judge Robert Holmes Bell; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons / Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion, Judge Bell interpreted the provisions of §3107a dealing with work loss benefits for temporarily unemployed persons. Judge Bell made several rulings regarding matters related to this section. First, he rejected the defendants' argument that in order to recover no-fault benefits as a temporarily unemployed person, the claimant must prove that he or she was eligible to recover MESC unemployment benefits at the time of an auto accident and lost that eligibility as a result of auto accident injuries. Second, Judge Bell rejected the defendant's argument that in order to qualify for benefits as a temporarily unemployed person, the claimant must satisfy a "but for" test and show that he or she would have obtained employment had it not been for the intervening automobile accident. Third, in spite of rejecting the defendant's two major contentions, Judge Bell granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that, under the facts of this case, plaintiff was not, as a matter of law, temporarily unemployed within the meaning of the statute. Plaintiff in this case had been a school teacher for approximately three years when she took a maternity leave. During the maternity leave she moved to another state with her husband, enrolled in law school for a few months and had her child. After giving birth, she initiated a search to find a teaching position in her new location but was unsuccessful. Fourteen months after the termination of her maternity leave, she was involved in a serious automobile accident which resulted in disabling injuries. In granting summary judgment for defendant, Judge Bell relied upon the Court of Appeals decision in Oikarinen v Farm Bureau, item number 360, and held that plaintiff, in the case at bar, had failed to introduce sufficient facts which support her allegation that as of the date of the accident she was "temporarily" unemployed, as opposed to permanently unemployed.
[Author's Comment: This decision is currently on appeal. Among other things, the appeal questions the correctness of the trial court's conclusion given the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in Lowman v Reliance Insurance Company, item number 566, which reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on the question of "temporarily unemployed." The Supreme Court held that determination of this issue involved a genuine issue of material fact for the trier of fact.]
