In Brashear v. DAIIE, 144 Mich. App. 667; 375 N.W.2d 785 (1985), the plaintiff was unable to work full-time for five months after receiving disabling injuries in an automobile accident. Id., 668. Nonetheless, his employer continued to pay his full salary out of the company's good will. Id. When the plaintiff applied for work-loss benefits from his no-fault carrier, the insurer argued that plaintiff was ineligible for the benefits because he had not, in fact, suffered a loss of income. Id., 668-669. The Court disagreed, and held instead that the employer's gratuitous payments were "collateral source payments rather than wages since they are not payments for work done during the time the employee was absent." Id., 671. The Court concluded that because the gratuitous payments were not wages, plaintiff remained eligible for lost wages from his no-fault carrier. Id., 671-672. The Court held that "work loss" as utilized in 3107(1)(b) includes situations in which an injured employee loses time from work that employee would have performed had he not been injured, even where the employer continues the employee's wages under a formal wage continuation plan or as a gratuity. In Brashear, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, was completely off work for nearly four months, and then returned to work on a part-time basis for the following three months. During that period, however, the employer paid the plaintiff his salary because of "good will." The Court determined that the plaintiff was still entitled to work-loss benefits under 3107(1)(b) because the statute defines work loss as "loss of income an injured person would have performed . . . had he or she not been injured."