Opinion ID: 2101732
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The majority opinion states:

Text: For benefits to be duplicative under the standard we have announced today, substantially equivalent qualifications and provisions would have to exist. In other words, the federal or state law that provides the governmental benefits or requires them to be provided must specifically base payment of benefits upon the happening of an event, and an automobile accident must qualify as such an event. [29] Since substantially the same benefit is payable as a retirement, survivors', or disability benefit, see fn 24, age 65 cannot properly be regarded as a distinguishing qualification  only the label of the benefit is different. The social security survivors' payments in O'Donnell were specifically based on a loss of income because of the death of the worker (however caused), and the social security disability payments to the worker in Thompson were specifically based on a loss of income because of disability (however caused). Although an automobile accident as such does not specifically qualify as such an event, this Court held in O'Donnell that when the event (i.e., a loss of income from work because of death) results from an automobile accident, the survivors' payments are required to be subtracted from a no-fault recovery; in Thompson, the event (i.e., a loss of income from work because of disability) resulted from an automobile accident, and the disability payments to the worker were subtracted from the no-fault recovery. Similarly, the social security retirement payments at issue here are specifically based on a total loss of income from wages at age 65 (however caused). Although an automobile accident as such does not qualify as such an event, when the event (i.e., a loss of income from work at age 65) results from an automobile accident, the retirement payments are to that extent required to be subtracted from no-fault work-loss benefits. The qualifications and provisions for entitlement to the social security retirement benefits at issue here and no-fault work-loss benefits are substantially equivalent. The majority opinion also states: For purposes of the second criterion of our two-part test, the benefits received must be contingent upon the occurrence of the same automobile accident. [30] No federal or state statute or regulation conditions entitlement to workers' compensation, or to social security survivors' or disability benefits, on the occurrence of an automobile accident. Nevertheless, it has been held that such benefits must be subtracted. See Mathis, supra ; O'Donnell, supra ; Thompson, supra . IV The failure to subtract the social security retirement payments at issue here renders Jarosz financially better off after the automobile accident than he would have been had he not been injured. The Court of Appeals opinion in this case undertook a mathematical analysis of Jarosz's situation, and concluded that in the year 1979, for example, Jarosz would have received the sum of $283.80 per week from work-loss benefits and social security payments if no subtraction were required although his income from post-retirement wages and social security payments would only have been $222.34 per week had he not been injured. [31] Such a result is not consistent with the legislative purpose of requiring coordination by subtracting governmentally mandated benefits. [32] V DAIIE alternatively argues that Jarosz's retirement payments must be considered in determining the amount of his loss of income resulting from the accident pursuant to § 3107 of the act. [33] We see no need to decide this question, as we base our conclusion on the mandatory setoff requirement of § 3109(1). We would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.