Court Opinion

ID: 9687114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:16:23.451387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.349482
License: Public Domain

Memorandum Opinion. These are workers’ compensation cases in which disabled employees are being paid benefits under the act.1 Because other employment-related benefits have been paid to the plaintiffs, the defendant employers wish to reduce the workers’ compensation benefits by a corresponding amount.
These cases principally concern MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811) and MCL 418.821; MSA 17.237(821).2 Section 811 provides that, with certain statutory exceptions, "benefits derived from any other source than those paid or caused to be paid by the employer as provided in this act” shall not "be considered in fixing the compensation under this act . . . .” Section 821 permits benefits to be assigned where, in effect, an injured employee has received from a health insurer an advance on expected workers’ compensation benefits.
These cases have been decided in a comprehensive and well-written special-panel3 decision of the Court of Appeals. 196 Mich App 470; 493 NW2d 909 (1992). We affirm the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and we adopt its opinion.
*623We emphasize, as did the Court of Appeals, that when a dispute of this sort is being litigated, the parties should present clear proof regarding the nature, source, and amount of the payments, as well as any individual or collective agreements regarding the terms of the payments.4 196 Mich App 478-479.
For the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, we affirm the Court’s judgments. MCR 7.302(F)(1).
Cavanagh, C.J., and Levin, Brickley, Boyle, and Mallett, JJ., concurred.

 Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, 1969 PA 317, as amended, MCL 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237(101) et seq.

 The plaintiffs were injured before the enactment of MCL 418.354; MSA 17.237(354), which was added by 1981 PA 203.

 Administrative Order No. 1990-6, 436 Mich lxxxiv; Administrative Order No. 1991-11, 439 Mich cxliv.

 The concurring judges in the Court of Appeals wrote to emphasize that these cases involve pre-1982 injuries, and that benefits paid for injuries occurring after March 31, 1982, are subject to coordination under MCL 418.354; MSA 17.237(354). 196 Mich App 490. In Franks v White Pine Copper Div, 422 Mich 636, 660-664; 375 NW2d 715 (1985), reh den 424 Mich 1202 (1985), we explained that an employer may so coordinate benefits without prior administrative approval. However, if a dispute, regarding coordination or other adjustment due to alternative payments, is taken to a so-called Rule V hearing (1984 AACS, R 408.35), the parties, by stipulation or through testimony and exhibits, need to present the magistrate with the information necessary to determine the question.