Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 50615; Published
Judges Kaufman, Allen, and Riley; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 109 Mich App 86; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
Social Security Retirement Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion dealing with a rather complex factual situation, the Court of Appeals permitted a plaintiff’s no-fault wage loss benefits to be reduced by a portion of his social security retirement benefits under §3109(1) of the Act in order to insure that the plaintiff would be in the same position he would have been in had he not suffered the work-disabling injuries in the automobile accident in question. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was about four months away from mandatory retirement at age 65. However, plaintiff had planned to get a new job at another place of employment after reaching age 65. When he sustained disabling injuries in the automobile accident in question, plaintiff was not able to take on his new job. As a result, plaintiff began drawing full social security retirement benefits. However, had plaintiff been able to take a new job, he would have drawn a lesser amount of social security retirement benefits. The court permitted the defendant insurance company to reduce the plaintiff’s work loss benefits (which were based upon the amount plaintiff would have earned in his new job) by the amount of the difference between the full retirement benefit and the lesser retirement benefit that plaintiff would have drawn had he continued working. The court stated:
"In order to justify his continued receipt of work loss benefits following his retirement, plaintiff assumes that, but for the accident, he would be able to work at Supreme Steel Company. But in order to qualify for social security retirement benefits at the full rate of $113.80 per week, plaintiff assumes that he would not be working for Supreme Steel Company. For under federal law working at Supreme Steel would reduce plaintiff’s social security retirement benefits by $61.46 per week. In our opinion, plaintiff can not have it both ways.
"Defendant contends, and the trial court properly found, §3109(1) requires the set-off to the extent of the duplication, e. g., $61.46 per week in 1979. Maintaining plaintiff in the position he would have been in had there been no accident does not prejudice the plaintiff and, at the same time, fulfills the valid legislative objectives of §3109(1)."
