Court Opinion

ID: 9583616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:40:30.784116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:20.860938
License: Public Domain

G. S. Allen, J.
(dissenting). I believe that the majority has clearly misconstrued the legislative intent behind §§ 354 and 357(2) of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act. MCL 418.354; MSA 17.237(354); MSA 418.357(2); MSA 17.237(357)(2). As the majority notes, the Legislature enacted the coordination-of-benefits provision set forth in § 354 as a cost-saving reform for businesses and to eliminate duplicate recovery of benefits. Section 357(2), on the other hand, ensures that claimants are not penalized upon reaching the age of sixty-five by the effect of double coordination, i.e., by application of both §§ 354 and 357(1).
Whether reading these two sections in pari materia or by simply giving the language of § 357(2) its plain meaning, it is evident that the Legislature never intended that an employer be prevented from applying the age-sixty-five reduction set forth in § 357(1) as long as the employee is not currently having benefits coordinated under § 354 but is eligible for social security benefits. The majority’s conclusion that an employer is forever bound by its initial election to coordinate benefits creates a business risk where none was intended by the Legislature.
I would reverse.