Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 68719; Published
Judges Brennan, Beasley, and Benson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 135 Mich App 187 Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
Other Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that under the government benefits set¬off provisions of §3109(1) of the Act, a City of Detroit police officer injured in an automobile accident arising out of the scope of his employment was not entitled to receive both charter benefits available to him under the Detroit City Charter as well as no-fault work loss benefits. The charter benefits must be subtracted as a "governmental benefit" from the no-fault work loss benefits otherwise payable. Even though plaintiff was eligible to receive workers' comp benefits as a result of his injury, he elected to receive the charter benefits pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between his union and the City of Detroit which gave plaintiff the absolute right to elect benefits.
The Court of Appeals held that even though the city charter benefits are not provided or required to be provided by state or federal law per se, the effect of the election of remedies section of the Workers' Compensation Statute is to make either workers' comp or charter benefits statutorily required. The Court stated, "MCLA 418.161(l)(a) provides that police and fire department employees working through municipalities with charter provisions prescribing like benefits may elect to take workers' compensation or charter benefits, but not both. This provision may be construed as a requirement of state law that police and fire department employees be entitled to workers' compensation or charter benefits so that receipt of either is a benefit 'required to be provided under state law'. .. under this definition, we are convinced that charter benefits must be set off. While no statutory provisions specifically require a municipality to provide its police and fire employees with benefits under a city charter, as noted above, MCLA 418.161(l)(a) has the effect of requiring municipalities to provide these employees with either workers' compensation or charter benefits. Where a municipality does offer an absolute right to charter benefits, MCLA 418.161(l)(a) permits the covered workers to insist upon these benefits. As such, under the construction given §3109(1) by the Perez v State Farm plurality, the charter benefits here are 'required to be provided' under state law."
In Footnote Number 1 of the opinion, the Court questions the continued vitality of its previous opinion in Luth v DAIIE (item number 496) which dealt with a plaintiff who had a choice between federal workers' compensation benefits or exhausting sick leave. Because the federal worker chose the sick leave, the federal government was not required to pay workers' compensation benefits and thus no set-off could be claimed.
