Court Opinion

ID: 9723344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:12:10.881623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:47.301465
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(concurring). I concur with the result in this case and the essential rationale put forth by my Brother Ryan.
However, I must write specially to observe that in Bowles v James Lumber Co, 345 Mich 292; 75 NW2d 822 (1956), this Court implicitly held wage *482increases which were unrelated to work-related injuries should not reduce the amount of compensation rightfully due to an injured worker.
I would therefore add to Justice Ryan’s opinion that if the employee whose disability affects both his full-time job and his part-time job receives any wage increase at either job despite the injury, the Bowles rationale would not allow such increase to diminish the amount of compensation under subsection 1. This safeguards the employee from the kind of inequitable result this Court ruled against in Bowles.