- 10 -
The Michigan Supreme Court has addressed the nature and
purpose of the payments made under this statute in Kushay v.
Sexton Dairy Co., 228 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. 1975). In Kushay, the
Court found that where the wife of a disabled husband, who became
totally and permanently disabled, performed services of attendant
care under the statute, the employer has a “duty to compensate
him or her as the person who discharges the employer’s duty to
provide them.” Id. at 74. If services are rendered as provided
by the statute, by the spouse or a third party, the employer has
an obligation to pay for them. Id. at 74. Also, in Dunaj v.
Harry Becker Co., 217 N.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974),
the Court of Appeals of Michigan held that medical services
provided by a claimant’s wife were “compensable to the same
extent as they would be if the services had been rendered by
someone other than the wife.”
In order to receive payments as an attendant-care provider,
petitioner had to provide attendant and nursing care services to
her husband. Likewise, GM was under an obligation to furnish
payments for attendant and nursing care services rendered by
petitioner or a third party.
This Court has addressed a similar issue in Bannon v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 59 (1992), where a California statute
allowed taxpayer to receive welfare benefits for providing
nonmedical care to her disabled adult daughter, the recipient of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011