Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-3480; Published
Judges Riley, Cavanagh, and Hensick; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Cavanagh
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 89 Mich App 90; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Loss of Earning Capacity [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous Opinion written by Judge Cavanagh, the Court of Appeals denied no-fault wage loss benefits to a plaintiff who, at the time of her auto accident, was a full-time student enrolled in a college registered nursing program. As a result of her injuries, plaintiff claimed that she had to delay her studies one year and lost approximately $13,500 in income and fringe benefits that she would have earned as a registered nurse within three years following the accident. The Court noted that under previous decisions in Struble v DAIIE (item number 109) and Nawrocki v Hawkeye Security (item number 76), no-fault wage loss benefits are only available for actual lost income and not for loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, plaintiff must allege an actual loss of income that she would have earned but for the accident. The Court noted that at the time of her injury, plaintiff still had one year remaining before completing her nursing studies. Accordingly, plaintiff would not have been able to work as a registered nurse prior to her accident and thus she had no previous earnings as a nurse upon which work loss may be calculated. In addition, plaintiff could not demonstrate that during the year lost as a result of the accident she would have received income working as a registered nurse.
The Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff was in fact alleging a loss of wages she could have earned in the future as a registered nurse but for the delay on her studies and thus was alleging a loss of earning capacity which is not property compensable with no-fault wage loss benefits.
The Court of Appeals also held that §3107(a) of the statute, dealing with unemployed individuals, should be given retroactive effect to the date of the no-fault act. Such was the holding in Harper v Progressive Casualty (item number 81). The Court held that the passage of §3107(a) was to provide a method to compute work loss benefits for workers who were unemployed at the time of their injuries. It adopted actual past wages as the appropriate standard for unemployed workers, and in doing so, the Legislature was merely emphasizing mat the thrust of the work loss provision in all cases was to calculate loss based on actual earnings, not on future possibilities.
