Recent Cases - Applying The Court Of Appeals’ Stokes Decision

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission

Applying The Court Of Appeals’ Stokes Decision

In Welch v Means Industrial, Inc, 2007 ACO #121, the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission addressed application of the Sington definition of disability under the current state of the law, i.e., under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Stokes v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 272 Mich App 571; 727 NW2d 637 (2006). In remanding the case to the Magistrate for additional analysis, the Appellate Commission explained “how a plaintiff proves a prima facie case on disability.” Commissioner Grit, with Commissioners Ries and Will concurring, said:

While not repudiating the numerous factors suggested by the Sington Court, the Court of Appeals decision in Stokes v DaimlerChrysler, 272 Mich App 571 (2006), offers up a straightforward discussion of how a plaintiff proves a prima facie case on disability:

. . . as a practical matter, an employee’s proofs will generally consist of the equivalent of the employee’s resume, i.e., a listing and description of the jobs the employee held up until the time of the injury, the pay for those jobs, and a description of the employee’s training and education; and testimony that the employee cannot perform any of the jobs within his qualifications and training paying the maximum wage . . . By producing such evidence, in addition to evidence of a work-related injury causing the disability, an employee makes a prima facie case of disability-a limitation in the employee’s maximum wage earning capacity in all jobs suitable to the employee’s qualifications and training. [Hovey v Hancock Enterprises, Inc, 2007 ACO #51, pp 4-6.]

We remand this matter to the magistrate for a complete analysis on the disability issues. His analysis should take into account the Sington decision and the Court of Appeals decision in Stokes. The magistrate should address whether the plaintiff’s work injuries have resulted in a limitation in his maximum wage earning capacity in work suitable to his qualifications and training. The decision should include findings on the plaintiff’s pre-injury qualifications and training, the exact extent of the plaintiff’s work-caused physical limitations, what work is suitable to his qualifications and training and within Mr. Welch’s work caused limitations, whether that work is reasonably available and whether the current pay for that type of work is equivalent to Mr. Welch’s maximum wage earning capacity.