Opinion ID: 2131659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conclusion

Text: The Legislature has recognized diminishing earning capacity in the diminishing life expectancy of the older worker and has developed a 5% reduction formula for each year after the sixty-fifth birthday, which will level off at age 75 and not fall below 50% of the benefits based on earnings at age 65. The formula may not precisely reflect the loss of anticipated earnings of each individual with mathematical nicety  but this is comprehensive legislation not unlike many other statutes in which age is a threshold factor. When viewed in that context, it cannot be said that there is no rational basis to support § 357 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. ISSUE II The plaintiff maintains that § 357 only applies when the employee was receiving or was entitled to receive compensation as of his sixty-fifth birthday. The plaintiff cites a portion of § 357 which says that when an employee who is receiving weekly payments or is entitled to receive weekly payments  reaches or has reached or passed the age of 65, the weekly payments for each year following his sixty-fifth birthday shall be reduced by 5% of the weekly payment paid or payable at age 65   . (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff argues that the section contemplates a 5% reduction each year after a claimant passes 65. Thus, if a person is first disabled when he reaches age 66, the statute does not apply to him. The statute only applies to those who are receiving benefits at age 65. Plaintiff's technical argument does not coincide with the plain meaning of the language of the statute. If this interpretation were to prevail, the statute would indeed fall unfairly on those injured before age 65. In Welch v Westran Corp, 45 Mich App 1, 4-5; 205 NW2d 828 (1973), [15] the Court of Appeals clearly resolved the dilemma: MCLA 412.9(g), supra, as amended by 1968 PA 227, § 9(g), provided that `when an employee who is receiving weekly payments or is entitled to weekly payments reaches or has reached or passed the age of 65' weekly payments were to be reduced in accordance with the provisions of the section. Since the section as amended provides that when the employee is either receiving or entitled to receive payment and reaches or has reached or passed age 65 his benefits will be reduced, it is clear that the Legislature intended that subsequent to July 1, 1968, all persons over the age of 65 are subject to the reduced-benefit provision, no matter when the injury was incurred. [16] (Emphasis added.) We agree with that opinion. The plain meaning of the words and the logical interpretation of the statute lead to the conclusion that its provisions fall equally upon all regardless of age at the time of injury. Affirmed.