68th District Court for the City of Flint; Docket No: OB-5397; Unpublished
Judge Judith A. Fullerton; 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 a written Opinion following a bench trial, Judge Fullerton held that a plaintiff who had been unemployed for six weeks prior to sustaining serious injury in an automobile accident was not entitled to claim wage loss benefits as a "temporarily unemployed" individual pursuant to §3107a because the plaintiff was unable to prove "that he would have been employed" but for the accident. In its findings of fact, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiff had factually supported his stated intent to return to work by virtue of the fact that he made timely job applications to several local employers. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the unemployment rate in Flint at the time of the accident and thereafter was inordinantly high. In spite of that proof, the Court noted that the plaintiff had received no offers of employment and therefore had not met his burden of proving that "but for" the injuries received in the auto accident he would have performed work during the period in question.
[Editor's Comment: It is the editor's opinion that a substantial question exists as to whether the Court's interpretation of the "temporarily unemployed" provisions of §3107a is correct That section does not use language which requires the plaintiff to prove that he/she would have been offered a job had it not been for the intervening accident It requires only that the person be "temporarily unemployed." Furthermore, the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in Oikarinen v Farm Bureau (item number 360) strongly suggests that where the plaintiff can support, by objective evidence, his stated intent to find employment, then a cause of action may be maintained under §3107a for wage loss benefits as a temporarily unemployed person. Imposition of the requirement that the plaintiff prove that he actually would have been offered a job had it not been for the accident would make it virtually impossible for people to claim benefits as temporarily unemployed persons during periods of severe economic conditions. It is understood that an appeal has been filed.]
