Court Opinion

ID: 9849498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:41:05.856244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:49.388480
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the award approved by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board was correct for the reasons set forth by Judge Allen in his opinion for the Court.
Judge Allen’s observation adequately and accurately demonstrates there was no double recovery for the same injury:
"At the time the redemption agreement was entered into, both insurers were parties respondent and petitioner was claiming that two separate injury dates were involved. Thus, both Transamerica and Great American Insurance were potentially liable. Great American Insurance entered into the redemption agreement to relieve its potential liability. The fact that the Appeal Board subsequently found only one injury date and thus *355no liability on the part of Great American Insurance should not negate the parties’ understanding that the $20,000 settlement was in settlement of the second insurer’s potential liability. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the public policy prohibiting double recovery for the same injury was not violated and petitioner may retain any benefit gained by the $20,000 redemption agreement.” Thick v Lapeer Metal Products, Co, 103 Mich App 491, 498; 302 NW2d 902 (1981).
I would affirm.
Ryan and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Kav-anagh, J.