Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 418 / Act 317 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.811 (2026)

Compensation; effect of savings, insurance, or other benefits.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969


Act 317 of 1969


418.811 Compensation; effect of savings, insurance, or other benefits.

Sec. 811.

    Any savings or insurance of the injured employee, or any contribution made by the injured employee to any benefit fund or protective association independent of this act, shall not be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be paid under this act, nor shall benefits derived from any other source than those paid or caused to be paid by the employer as provided in this act, be considered in fixing the compensation under this act, except as provided in sections 161, 354, 358, 821, and 846.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 201, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1976–1993 · leading case: Maner v. Ford Motor Co., 493 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maner v. Ford Motor Co., 493 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “On February 7, 1992, we granted the petitions of plaintiffs to convene a special panel of this Court: The Court orders that the petitions to convene a special panel pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1990-6 are granted and the prior opinion in these cases is vacated.”
Thick v. Lapeer Metal Prods., 353 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “[2] MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811). [3] The Legislature subsequently amended the statute to provide credits for such out of state awards.”
Franks v. White Pine Copper Div., Copper Range Co., 332 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “” We agree with the appeal board and further observe that the Legislature expressed an intent directly contrary to defendant’s suggestion in MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811), which, prior to 1982, provided in part: "[B]enefits derived from any other source than those paid or caused…”
Stanley v. Hinchliffe & Kenner, 238 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. 1976). “14 MCLA 418.811; MSA 17.237(811); 15 “To allow double recovery is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of workmen’s compensation, in that if the employee were to receive more compensation while disabled than while working, the temptation to malinger and prolong his…”
Russell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 432 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “She signed a reimbursement agreement for the sickness and accident benefits, but not for the extended-disability benefits. Since the extended-disability benefits were provided by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company pursuant to its policy with defendant, they were benefits…”
Smith v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 472 N.W.2d 32 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The basis for the decision was that § 811 provides that any savings or insurance of the injured employee, or any contribution made by the injured employee to any benefit fund or protective association independent of the act, shall not be taken into consideration in determining…”
Black v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 341 N.W.2d 157 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811) was not ambiguous prior to its amendment.”
Maner v. Ford Motor Co., 502 N.W.2d 197 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “These cases principally concern MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811) and MCL 418.”
Beneteau v. Detroit Free Press, 323 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The WCAB found that MCL 418.811; MSA *260 17.237(811) prohibits consideration of wage continuation payments when computing the accrued compensation owing.”
Lulgjuraj v. Chrysler Corp., 463 N.W.2d 152 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “1 We note that, where an employee receives benefits “caused to be paid” by the employer, the employer is entitled to credit for these benefits when fixing workers’ compensation.”
Maner v. Ford Motor Co., 485 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “The question in conflict to be resolved is whether employers can deduct group benefits paid to employees from workers’ compensation wage loss payments under MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811) if the group benefits were not caused to be paid by the employer as provided in the Workers’…”
Farmer v. Chrysler Corp., 250 N.W.2d 756 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “"No savings or insurance of the injured employee, nor any contribution made by him to any benefit fund or protective association independent of this act, shall be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be paid hereunder nor shall benefits derived from any…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.