Court Opinion

ID: 9741434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:55:41.01809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.058219
License: Public Domain

MacKenzie, J.
(concurring). I concur separately in the majority’s remand for a determination of compensable injury by the Bureau of Workers’ Disability Compensation to allow setoff of the amount of benefits the workers’ compensation carrier would have been required to provide had the claim not been redeemed. I adopt the reasoning of the majority in Thacker v DAIIE, 114 Mich App 374; 319 NW2d 349 (1982).
This Court is split on the issue of whether, under MCL 500.3109(1); MSA 24.13109(1), a no-fault insurer is entitled to set off the amount an injured worker would have collected had he continued to receive periodic workers’ compensation payments rather than the actual amount received by the worker under a redemption agreement. Compare Gregory v Transamerica Ins Co, 139 Mich App 327; 362 NW2d 268 (1984), and Divito v Transamerica Corp, 141 Mich App 29; 366 NW2d 231 (1985), with James v Allstate Ins Co, 137 Mich App 222; 358 NW2d 1 (1984), following Thacker.
I also agree that plaintiff’s claim for replacement services is barred by the statutory period of limitation contained in MCL 500.3145; MSA 24.13145 and with the majority’s disposition of the *708penalty interest issue under MCL 500.3142; MSA 24.13142.
Further, I concur in the determination that plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for mental anguish and distress.