Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No 51725; Published
Judges R. B. Burns, T.M. Burns, and Cynar, 2-1 (With J. Cynar dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 108 Mich App 705; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons / Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 decision by Judge T. M. Burns, the court held that where injuries from an auto accident were sufficient in themselves to preclude the plaintiff from working, plaintiff is eligible to receive work loss benefits under §3107(b) and §3107a even though plaintiff sustained a subsequent nonaccident-related heart attack that also would have prevented plaintiff from working. The court held:
“The contract under which plaintiff was insured by defendant provided that he would be entitled to work loss benefits if, because of an automobile accident, he was unable to earn his normal wages. An automobile accident has rendered plaintiff unable to earn his normal wages. As long as the injuries plaintiff sustained in the automobile accident are a sufficient cause of his inability to work, other subsequent and independent injuries that result in temporary periods of unemployment do not make plaintiff ineligible to receive work loss benefits."
The court stated that to hold otherwise would invite undue complication in the processing of no-fault claims and would thus "complicate the legislature's simple plan for speedy payment of benefits."
Judge Cynar dissented, concluding that an injured person should not continue to collect no-fault work loss benefits for the period of time in which he would have been otherwise unable to work as a result of a subsequent unrelated disability. Judge Cynar noted that plaintiff's heart attack was unrelated to the automobile accident in question. Thus, plaintiff would presumably have had the heart attack in any event, and as a result, he is no worse off from a denial of work loss benefits than if he had never had the automobile accident Judge Cynar reasoned that no-fault work loss benefits should only be paid for actual economic loss that the plaintiff would have incurred as a result of an automobile accident injury.
