Recent Cases - Losing Reasonable Employment Where The Employee Is At Fault

Michigan Court of Appeals

Losing Reasonable Employment Where The Employee Is At Fault

In Johnson v General Motors Corp (CA Docket No. 275909, rel’d January 29, 2008), the Court of Appeals addressed the “reasonable employment” (f/k/a favored work) provisions of MCL 418.301(5)-(9).

Plaintiff suffered a work-related knee condition and then returned to work with restrictions. She claimed a new injury while working at such “reasonable employment” and filed a petition on that basis. Plaintiff had a confrontation at the trial on that petition with a representative of the defendant. Defendant said plaintiff “‘attacked’” the represenative at the Agency and, as a result, plaintiff’s employment was terminated. Defendant then filed its own petition claiming that, since plaintiff lost her post-injury reasonable employment as a result of her own fault, she was no longer entitled to benefits under MCL 418.301(5)(d). This provision says: “If the employee, after having been employed pursuant to this subsection for 100 weeks or more loses his or her job through no fault of the employee, the employee shall receive compensation under this act pursuant to the following: ….”

The Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commisison found this provision inapplicable and ruled plaintiff was entitled to ongoing benefits. The Appellate Commission said nothing within the reasonable employment provisions exactly fit this case and, therefore, its provisions were not the criteria by which to judge whether plaintiff was entitled to benefits.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court of Appeals said that “the WCAC’s decision, which advocates an interpretation of MCL 418.301 requiring looking outside the statute to determine plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits, is improper.” The Court of Appeals vacated the Appellate Commission’s order and remanded for a determination of “whether a termination of employment, through the fault of the employee here, results in the permanent forfeiture of benefits pursuant to MCL 418.301(5)(d).”