Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 160095; Unpublished
Judges Connor, Sawyer, and Corsiglia; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons / Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition which had been granted in favor of Citizens Insurance Company, and held that, at a minimum, plaintiff had raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether or not he satisfied the "temporarily unemployed" provisions of the no-fault act and was entitled to wage loss benefits pursuant to §3107a of the act.
Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident during a period of unemployment He claimed at trial that, even had work been available, he would have been unable to work as a result of injuries sustained in the automobile accident and would not have been able to work for approximately 10 weeks after the accident occurred. Citizens contended that because plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident, he was not entitled to wage loss benefits.
Plaintiff had voluntarily quit his employment 10 months before the accident and remained unemployed until after the time of the accident. Some months after the accident, plaintiff did again become re-employed.
The Court of Appeals held that the question presented was whether or not plaintiff was "temporarily unemployed" within the meaning of §3107a where he had voluntarily quit his last employment, was not going to return to his previous employment, and had not yet secured new employment.
The court reviewed its previous holdings in Oikarinen v Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan, 101 Mich App 436 (1980) and Szabo v DAUE, 136 Mich App 9 (1984). In Oikarinen, the court stated that the mere assertion of an intent to return to gainful employment not supported by any actions during the period of unemployment does not raise a genuine issue of material fact. On the other hand, in Szabo, after the plaintiff had been discharged for cause from his employment two months before the accident, he had applied for employment with four or five potential employers, though he had not received any employment offers at the time of the accident In that case, the Court of Appeals had upheld summary disposition granted in favor of the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals herein stated that the instant facts do not neatly fit into either of the two scenarios of Szabo or Oikarinen. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff did testify in his deposition that he did apply for other employment, unlike the plaintiff in Oikarinen. Further, the court noted that the plaintiff in the case at bar did eventually become employed after the accident, which would support his contention that he intended to return to active employment. Accordingly, the court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact and that summary disposition in favor of Citizens was inappropriate.
