THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES STOKES v DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

The Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Stokes. In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals' majority affirms the open award of benefits while vacating many rulings in the majority decision of the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission. The most important points from the Court of Appeals' majority decision are the following:

• Work suitable to the employee's qualifications and training "is not limited to the jobs on the employee's resume, but, rather, includes any jobs the injured employee could actually perform upon hiring." The Court of Appeals' majority said to the extent the Appellate Commission held otherwise, "it erred."

• Related to the above ruling, the Court of Appeals' majority said "to the extent the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission held that as a matter of law a transferable skills analysis is irrelevant in evaluating the employee's qualifications and training, it erred. A transferable skills analysis may yield credible testimony that there is actual employment that the employee's qualifications and training make the employee capable of performing upon hiring, although the employee has never performed it before."

• With respect to discovery, the Court of Appeals' majority said, "the WCAC concluded that the magistrate had no authority to order plaintiff to provide discovery to defendant in this matter. This was error." The Court held, "the magistrate has authority to grant relevant discovery necessary for defendant to develop a defense trial under Sington." This can include "vocational expert interviews" of plaintiff. It is a “matter for the magistrate’s discretion." The Court also said vocational information "could be sought by interrogatories if necessary before trial."

• The Court of Appeals' majority said the Appellate Commission's "holding that plaintiff did not need to show his loss of wages was caused by his work-related injury and resulting disability" is "vacated."

• The Court of Appeals' majority nevertheless affirmed the open award finding plaintiff's proofs sufficient to make "a prima facie case of disability" and defendant did not rebut them. The Court majority held that, "[w]hile an interview will no doubt be appropriate in some cases," it was not error for the magistrate to refuse a pre-trial vocational interview in this case. Defendant could have "sought the information by interrogatory" and by other means so as "to present a transferable skills analysis" at trial. Finally the Court of Appeals' majority did not find any abuse of discretion in the magistrate not adjourning the case primarily because defendant "had not provided its vocational counsel with plaintiff's employment records before trial."

• The dissent agreed with the majority on most of its holdings, but would reverse and remand the case "because the WCAC used the wrong legal definition of disability and defendant was denied a meaningful opportunity to discover evidence and present proofs regarding plaintiff's actual qualifications and training."