Worker Compensation coordination update

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court affirmed the WCAC's decision, which affirmed a magistrate's decision holding that the defendant-SIF may not reduce its reimbursement to the defendant-Township (employer) to reflect the Township's unexercised right to coordinate benefits. The court held that Rahman supported the WCAC's conclusion, and there was no principled reason for distinguishing it. Plaintiff was employed full-time by GM and part-time as a Township firefighter. He was injured while working as a firefighter for the Township and temporarily unable to work at either job. The Township paid weekly wage-loss benefits to plaintiff at the maximum rate. Plaintiff also received benefits from a "sickness and accident" policy purchased by the Township. The Township did not reduce its payment of worker's compensation benefits to plaintiff pursuant to MCL 418.354(1). The Township deliberately chose not to coordinate the benefits for its own policy reasons. After paying the weekly wage-loss benefits to plaintiff, the Township sought reimbursement from the SIF pursuant to the procedure in MCL 418.372(1)(b). The SIF agreed to pay an amount it contended it would have owed if the Township had coordinated the sickness and accident benefits and thus reduced the weekly benefit that was apportioned between the Township and the SIF. The Township filed a petition to recoup the benefits it claimed the SIF owed. Relying on Rahman, the magistrate rejected the SIF's argument as to coordination and granted the Township's petition. The WCAC unanimously affirmed the magistrate's decision. The SIF argued on appeal that the WCAC erred in directing the SIF to reimburse the Township on the basis of the uncoordinated amount that the Township voluntarily paid. The "dual employment" provision of the WDCA governs the payment of weekly wage-loss benefits to an employee with dual employers. When the employee is injured while performing a job that pays 80% or less of his total average weekly wage, § 372(1)(b) provides a formula and procedure for the payment of the weekly wage benefits. The WDCA's provision governing the coordination of benefits was implicated in this case because of the benefits that plaintiff received from a "sickness and accident" policy the Township purchased. The SIF maintained that "the apportionment of liability in § 372(1)(b) should occur after the employee's weekly benefit amount is reduced through the coordination of benefits pursuant to § 354(1)." The court held that position was not consistent with Rahman, in which the SIF argued "that the amount it is required to reimburse the board [the injury-employer] should be calculated after plaintiff's pension is deducted from the total amount of weekly benefits due to the plaintiff on the basis of his employment with the board and the city." In rejecting that argument, the court focused on the plain language of § 354(1). While the SIF argued that Rahman was wrongly decided, the court was bound to follow that decision. Further, the court concluded that Rahman is consistent with the statutory language, and the SIF's position is not. The SIF argued that Rahman is distinguishable because it concerned coordination of a different type of benefit - pension benefits rather than benefits from a disability insurance policy. "But, both types of benefits are governed by § 354(1), and the statute