Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-4250; Published
Judges Holbrook, T. M. Burns, and Van Valkenburg; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 86 Mich App 245; 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:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a lengthy decision dealing with §3107(b) of the no-fault statute, the Court unanimously held per Judge Van Valkenburg that a loss of earning capacity was not compensable as part of the work loss benefit scheme of that section. Accordingly, the Court rejected the claim of an unemployed housewife that she should be permitted to recover work loss benefits for a three year period based upon her loss of earning capacity. The Court concluded that the words "would have performed" in §3107(b) indicated that the Legislature intended to provide damages for work loss only and not for the loss of the ability to work. The Court stated that its conclusion in this regard was consistent with the recent Court of Appeals case in Nawrocki v Hawkeye (item number 76).
In reaching its conclusion as aforesaid, the Court next analyzed whether such a work loss benefit scheme violates equal protection. The Court stated that in making this determination it had to choose between the "strict scrutiny tests," the intermediate "fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation test," and the traditional "rational basis" test The Court felt because the no-fault statute is "experimental legislation" the rational basis test should be used. Under that test, §3107(b) was not unconstitutional.
