Court Opinion

ID: 9705020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:54:53.523787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.465541
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P. J.
(concurring). I agree that we are bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of MCLA 418.827; MSA 17.237(827) in Pelkey v Elsea Realty & Investment Co, 394 Mich 485; 232 NW2d 154 (1975), and that that interpretation compels the result reached by the trial court here.
However, were we writing on a clean slate, I would construe the statute as Justice Williams did in Pelkey, and tie the right to reimbursement to liability under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCLA 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237(101) et seq. An employer or a compensation carrier should not be allowed to seek reimbursement out of a recovery by the employee against a third-party tortfeasor where the employer or carrier did not pay compensation for the injury which the recovery represents. Compensation carriers do not pay benefits for noneconomic loss.
The task of segregating the third-party recovery into economic and noneconomic loss is eased considerably by the no-fault automobile insurance act, 1972 PA 294; MCLA 500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 et seq. That act itself divides the payment of benefits into economic and noneconomic loss. MCLA 500.3107, 500.3135; MSA 24.13107, 24.13135. The compensation carrier could seek reimbursement out of the employee’s recovery of personal injury protection benefits but not out of a recovery for residual or noneconomic loss.