Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 79749; Published
Judges Brennan, Holbrook, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 144 Mich App 394; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
Veterans / Military Benefits [§3109(1)]
Medicare Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that medical benefits paid by the United States Navy and the Veterans Administration to a serviceman who sustained serious bodily injury in an automobile accident were "governmental benefits" under §3109(1) of the no-fault statute, thus entitling the no-fault carrier to a setoff to the full extent such benefits were received by the serviceman.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in LeBlanc v State Farm (Item No. 414). In LeBlanc, the Supreme Court held that Medicare benefits were not governmental benefits because they were more in the nature of private health insurance benefits. Thus, a no-fault insurer could not claim a setoff unless the injured person had a coordinated benefits policy. The trial court, relying on LeBlanc, ruled that Medicare and military benefits should be treated the same. Therefore, no setoff should be permitted unless the injured person voluntarily opted to coordinate benefits under §3109a of the statute. In light of the fact that plaintiff in this case had not purchased a coordinated benefits policy, the trial court held that he was entitled to recover both no-fault benefits and Navy/VA benefits.
In refusing to extend the LeBlanc decision to this situation, the court stated that Medicare and military benefits are distinguishable. The military is required to provide medical care under 10 USC S 1071. In addition, the military provides 100-percent coverage wherein Medicare only provides a percentage of the costs. Moreover, the court noted that under the two-part test set forth in the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Jarosz v DAIIE (Item No. 702), the military benefits paid to plaintiff in this case served the same purpose as the no-fault benefits and were provided as a result of the same accident. Accordingly, the military benefits satisfied the Jarosz standard and were, thus, deductible under §3109(1).
[NOTE: This decision reverses Item No. 769. Application for rehearing in the Court of Appeals has been sought]
