77th District Court for the County of Mecosta; Docket No. 6602; Unpublished
Judge R. L. Miles; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Relevance of Sick and Vacation Pay [§3107(1)(b)]
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature and Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
Calculating Attorney Fees Based on Contingent Fee [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion following a bench trial, Judge Miles rendered the following rulings regarding a suit for first party no-fault benefits:
1. A plaintiff who was injured and returned to lesser paying favored employment was entitled to recover a wage differential computed to date of trial between her actual wages and those she would have received had she remained in her job clarification at the higher scale of wages, including any "step raises" she would have received in such job clarification status.
2. Citing the case of Krawczyk v DAIIE (item number 262), the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as wage loss benefits under §3107(b), those amounts of money that would have been contributed by her employer for plaintiff’s Blue Cross-Blue Shield health coverage during that period of time mat plaintiff was off of work due to her disability. Testimony in this case showed that plaintiff’s employer stopped paying such health insurance contribution for a 10 month period. The premium contributions that plaintiff’s employer would have made during that period were recoverable by plaintiff in her no-fault lawsuit as wage loss benefits.
3. Plaintiff was not permitted to obtain reimbursement from her no-fault carrier for certain "vacation days" that plaintiff used up during her disability. These vacation days were a day off work with pay. Unused vacation days did not result in cash payment to the plaintiff. Rather, an unused vacation day was simply lost. Thus, plaintiff suffered no economic loss as a result of using her vacation days.
4. Under the authority of Orr v DAIIE (item number 183) plaintiff is entitled to recover, as wage loss benefits, all "sick days" that she was required to use as a result of her injury. Contrary to vacation days, if sick days were not used by plaintiff, plaintiff would receive monetary compensation from her employer for unused sick days. Thus, plaintiff suffered economic loss when she was forced to use these sick days as a result of her auto accident injury.
5. Stating that the purpose of the No-Fault Act is to make the automobile crash victim whole, Judge Miles ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as wage loss benefits, those sums of money that plaintiff’s employer would have contributed on plaintiff’s behalf for Social Security contribution. During the time plaintiff was on medical leave, no Social Security contributions were made to her account by her employer. This results in an economic loss to plaintiff because the eligibility of an employee to receive Social Security benefits is directly related to the number and sequence of quarters (quarter years) during which credit is given to an employee as shown by employer contributions. Thus, the amounts not contributed by plaintiff’s employer because of her work disability, were recoverable in no-fault wage loss benefits.
6. Under §3142 of the statute, plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the overdue benefits. In addition, plaintiff is entitled to recover the statutory interest of six percent applicable to general civil suits. This interest recovery is in no way dependent upon whether or not the insurer acted reasonably or unreasonably or in good or bad faith.
7. Plaintiff was entitled to an attorney fee of one third of the total recovery
inclusive of the interest computation.
