Court Opinion

ID: 9685203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:26:04.964553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.271675
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(concurring). This case. presents substantially the same fact pattern as was present in Wrobel v Wayne County Road Commission, 79 Mich App 484; 261 NW2d 58 (1977). I wrote separately in Wrobel, 79 Mich App at 486 (T. M. Burns, concurring), outlining what appeared to me to be an equitable method of reimbursement for a workmen’s compensation carrier who had paid compensation benefits. At that time I believed Pelkey v Elsea Realty & Investment Co, 394 Mich 485; 232 NW2d 154 (1975), applied to this situation and reluctantly concurred in the result reached by the majority in Wrobel.
After examining Judge Riley’s opinion, I am convinced that my reluctance to distinguish Pelkey in Wrobel was based on an erroneous premise and I now join in Judge Riley’s opinion in this case. Pelkey is distinguishable on the basis of the type of recovery available to the injured worker in a third-party suit. Pelkey does not control here.