tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74803812008-10-08T22:10:06.409-04:00Welcome to the MSIA's new blog. We started this to improve our communication with you, our members. You can leave comments on any of the entries (beneath the entries is a link),MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-46262515836314331442008-08-04T18:33:00.001-04:002008-08-04T18:35:19.974-04:00

The Michigan Supreme Court has decided an important workers’ compensation case addressing employee misconduct. The case is Brackett v Focus Hope. The question in Brackett is whether an employee’s injury related to the intentional breaking of an employer rule precluded the employee from benefits. The Supreme Court holds that benefits are barred. The employee in this case was told at the time of

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-76990723882393093552008-06-26T15:35:00.002-04:002008-06-26T15:40:09.470-04:00

Susan Azar of Northville was recently appointed by Governor Jennifer Granholm to the Funds Administration's Board of Trustees. The board oversees the Self-Insurers' Security Fund, Second Injury Fund, and the Silicosis, Dust Disease and Logging Industry Compensation Fund. Ms. Azar is the manager of workers' compensation for General Motors Corporation, and is appointed to represent employers

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-1887559738752222452008-06-12T17:02:00.017-04:002008-06-24T18:32:29.122-04:00

SUPREME COURT DECIDES STOKES v CHRYSLER LLC BY: Gerald M. Marcinkoski, Lacey & Jones, LLP The Michigan Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 released the long-awaited opinion in Stokes v Chrysler LLC. The Supreme Court explained how the Sington definition of disability in the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act is to be applied. Recall that Sington v Chrysler Corp, 467 Mich 144; 648 NW2d 624 (2002) is

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-64886574379899581912008-04-15T22:06:00.000-04:002008-04-15T19:17:26.833-04:00

. As of this writing, the Supreme Court still has pending before it Stokes v Chrysler LLC, f/k/a DaimlerChrysler Corp (SC Docket No. 132648). The case was orally argued on October 4, 2007. The point orally argued in Stokes was the parties’ burdens of proof in Sington disability cases. Recall that the Court of Appeals had largely dismantled the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s en

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-36149187055759655162008-04-15T20:11:00.001-04:002008-04-15T19:15:17.849-04:00

Michigan Court of AppealsApplying SingtonIn Miller v Grand Haven Stamped Products Co (CA Docket No. 278235, rel’d April 1, 2008), the Court of Appeals reversed the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s and Magistrate’s open award of benefits on the basis that they had misapplied Sington. The plaintiff in this case works for an automobile components manufacturer. She suffered a

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-73880823308855482402008-04-15T19:40:00.000-04:002008-04-15T19:10:14.339-04:00

Michigan Court of AppealsApplying Rakestraw In Bousquette v Meeder Dimension & Lumber Co (CA Docket No. 274373, rel’d April 8, 2008), the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission had reversed the Magistrate’s open award of benefits on the basis that the Magistrate erred in failing to apply Rakestraw v General Dynamics Land Systems, 469 Mich 220; 666 NW2d 199 (2003). Plaintiff appealed. The

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-34767545113079364852008-04-15T19:29:00.000-04:002008-04-15T19:05:21.124-04:00

Michigan Court of AppealsLosing 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

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-73233380084791698912008-04-15T19:10:00.001-04:002008-04-15T19:19:34.075-04:00

Michigan Court of AppealsMajority Decision Of The WCAC In Smith v Exemplar Manufacturing Co (CA Docket No. 272749, rel’d January 31, 2008), the Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether a splintered Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission decision constituted a “true majority” opinion. The Appellate Commission had issued a decision that consisted of three different opinions: a lead

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-43568147680767787092008-04-15T19:06:00.001-04:002008-04-15T19:22:22.049-04:00

Michigan Court of AppealsBailey And Retroactivity In Pieser v Sara Lee Bakery and Second Injury Fund (Vocationally Handicapped Provision)March 20, 2008), the Court of Appeals addressed whether the employer was entitled to reimbursement as a result of a change in the law precipitated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center, 472 Mich 685; 698 (CA Docket Nos.

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-11291108911701287642008-04-15T19:00:00.001-04:002008-04-15T19:24:45.503-04:00

Michigan Court of AppealsWCAC’s Administrative Role Two of the unpublished decisions from the Court of Appeals address the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s authority in reversing Magistrate’s decisions. In Krastes v Haseley Construction Co, Inc (CA Docket No. 276545, rel’d April 10, 2008), the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Commission and reinstated the Magistrate’s order

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-235717372526209592008-04-15T18:54:00.001-04:002008-04-15T19:28:50.552-04:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate CommissionApplying 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).

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-58562681561875935942008-04-15T18:49:00.003-04:002008-04-15T19:30:43.341-04:00

April - Workers' Compensation Appellate CommissionMedical Benefits Under A Prior Open Award The Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission has addressed the defendant’s obligation to pay medical benefits under a prior open award of benefits, as well as related procedural issues. In Kerrigan v Suds Mobile Cleaning Systems, 2007 ACO #187, the Magistrate had previously entered an open award of

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-11640413863415446302008-02-15T17:40:00.002-05:002008-02-15T17:45:44.442-05:00

Presented by the MSU Human Resources Education and Training Center Employment Law: Applications in Human Resources Web Presentation Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 12:00 p.m. EDT The School of Labor and Industrial Relations is excited to present its second free live web presentation featuring Stacy Hickox to discuss Employment Law: Applications in Human Resources. Topic Description: Join us for

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-66585395287675535732008-02-13T07:24:00.002-05:002008-02-19T14:05:22.214-05:00

The Governor has made a new appointment to the Board of Magistrates: Lisa Klaeren, an attorney who practiced in Kalamazoo. Congratulations!

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-86524287084515202942008-02-11T22:41:00.000-05:002008-02-12T16:58:03.580-05:00

It is with deep regret that the Michigan Self-Insurers’ Association must report a great loss. Mr. Thomas P. Chuhran, former Executive Secretary of the MSIA, has passed away. Mr. Chuhran served as the MSIA’s Executive Secretary for 23 years, from 1978 to 2001. Funeral Home visitation is Tuesday, February 12, 2008, from 6:00 p.m., to 9:00 p.m., and Wednesday from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-80668088159546995332008-01-26T16:00:00.000-05:002008-01-26T16:01:52.573-05:00

SUPREME COURT The Supreme Court issued an order in Simpson v Borbolla Construction & Concrete Supply, Inc (SC Docket No. 133274, order entered December 7, 2007). The Supreme Court vacated the published opinion of the Court of Appeals saying the Court of Appeals’ panel “erroneously held that Rakestraw v Gen Dynamics Land Sys, Inc, 469 Mich 220 (2003), does not apply” to this case. The Court of

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-86060148412304915692008-01-26T15:55:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:58:57.971-05:00

Court of Appeals Desertion” in Death Cases In the published decision Moore v Prestige Painting, ____ Mich App ____; ____ NW2d ____ (2007) (CA Docket No. 274252, rel’d December 27, 2007), the Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether the decedent employee had “deserted” his daughter so as to make the daughter a conclusive dependent under the second sentence of MCL 418.331(b). The

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-83917847797348375612008-01-26T15:54:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:55:33.318-05:00

Court of Appeals Mental Disabilities and Attorney Fees on Medical Expenses In the unpublished decision, Brackett v Focus Hope (CA Docket No. 274078, rel’d October 23, 2007), the Court of Appeals addressed a mental disability claim and a claim that the employer is responsible for plaintiff’s attorney fee on unpaid medical expenses. The employee worked for Focus Hope and was told at the outset

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-39399000551157472672008-01-26T15:51:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:53:52.909-05:00

Court of Appeals Mental Disability The Court of Appeals resolved another mental disability case in the unpublished decision: Beckes v Detroit Diesel Corp (CA Docket No. 270791, rel’d November 27, 2007). In this case, the employee suffered an undisputed work-related orthopedic injury after lifting at work. He later developed a “somatic delusion” or “neurotic obsession” believing he had

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-61600886330976636902008-01-26T15:48:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:51:11.443-05:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Authority to Enter Voluntary Pay Agreements In Mazza/Automobile Club of Michigan v McLaren Regional Medical Center, 2007 ACO #203, plaintiff and intervening plaintiff appealed the Magistrate’s decision that had dismissed all applications on the basis of a voluntary pay agreement. Plaintiff proceeding in pro per appealed the dismissal challenging her

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-71841455191103150032008-01-26T15:46:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:47:59.877-05:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Handwriting Analysis Reversed In Khalil v Oil Exchange C, Inc, 2007 ACO #200, the trial Magistrate granted the employee an open award of benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The main question presented was whether plaintiff was an “employee” of defendant or a person excluded by defendant’s insurance policy. In finding the policy

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-53609349803730389652008-01-26T15:43:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:45:55.500-05:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Fall in Parking Lot Not Proved to be Work-Related In Anderson v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 2008 ACO #8, the employee slipped and fell while alighting from her car in a parking lot after her lunch hour causing a back injury. Following a trial that lasted over five days and produced “[s]even hundred, plus, pages of a record and probably an

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-89365939588846908592008-01-26T15:26:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:32:04.979-05:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Necessity to Prove “Current Wages” at Suitable Jobs In Hogle v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 2007 ACO #233, the employer appealed an open award of benefits. The employer contended the Magistrate failed to evaluate, for “disability” purposes, the economic impact of the employee’s physical limitations from his work injury. The Appellate Commission agreed with

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-51737312240231515452008-01-26T15:24:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:26:29.229-05:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Green Sheet Controls and Necessity to Cross-Appeal In Schroeder v T.J. Maxx, 2007 ACO #208, one of the questions presented was the employee’s argument that the Magistrate’s written opinion did not conform to the green sheet order. The Magistrate ordered the correct weekly benefit rate on the green sheet order, but his written decision recited a

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7480381.post-45925343957827588882008-01-26T15:11:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:19:38.742-05:00

Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Retiree Presumption In Turek v Metz Baking Co, 2007 ACO #232, the employee had been a longtime employee for the employer. He suffered a lower back injury in 1999 at work, underwent back surgery, and returned to work with restrictions. He worked at several jobs that accommodated his restrictions. The employer then accused the employee of violating a

MSIA Boardnoreply@blogger.com