 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sington v. Chrysler Corp.7/31/2002
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
This case concerns eligibility for worker's compensation benefits pursuant to the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) definition of disability at MCL 418.301(4) and the reasonable employment provisions, MCL 418.301(5), of that act. The Court of Appeals effectively concluded that under ยง 301(4)'s definition of disability as interpreted in Haske v Transport Leasing , Inc, 455 Mich 628; 566 NW2d 896 (1997), plaintiff was disabled and entitled to wage loss benefits. We conclude that the Haske definition of disability is erroneous and should be overruled. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the WCAC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
A
A review of the relationship in the worker's compensation statute between "disability" and "favored work" (or as it is now formally called in the WDCA, "reasonable employment") is helpful in understanding what is at issue in this case.
There are circumstances in which a work-related injury might prevent an employee from continuing to perform one or even more of the complex of tasks in the job he was performing at the time of the injury, but in which, even with such a limitation, that employee may still be able to perform the job sufficiently so that his wage earning capacity is not affected in that job. For example, such an injury might render an employee unable to perform a job that requires continuous standing, but nevertheless leaves the employee able to perform a job suitable to his qualifications and training in which the employee can sit while performing most or all his job duties to the degree that his ability to earn equivalent wages is not different than before the injury.
Historically, such a situation posed a dilemma for the worker's compensation system. As the courts dealt with difficult cases in which an employee could suffer a work-related injury and be limited, to one degree or another, in his ability to perform work, but not rendered altogether unable to work, judges developed the common-law mitigation doctrine of "favored work." Under the favored-work doctrine, an employer could generally require an injured employee, eligible for worker's compensation benefits, to do other work that the employee was reasonably capable of performing. The wages earned in the "easier" job could be used by the employer as a setoff, or mitigation, against the employer's worker's compensation liability. If the employee unreasonably refused to participate in the favored work, i.e., the "easier job," the penalty was loss of worker's compensation benefits.
There were also common-law protections that the courts developed to protect the employee from being exploited during the period he was engaged in favored work. This approach to favored work, with its emphasis on mitigation, was felt to advance the interests of the employee by encouraging his re-entry into the workplace, as well as the interests of the employer in limiting its ongoing worker's compensation liability.
In 1982, the Legislature effectively displaced the common-law doctrine with the enactment of a statutory approach that drew heavily upon the favored-work doctrine (now called "reasonable employment" ). Importantly, the legislation stated that, as a prerequisite to being considered a participant in reasonable employment (MCL 418.301 ) an employee must first suffer a "disability," as defined in MCL 418.301(4). Because an employee engaged in reasonable employment is afforded significant statutory protections once the reasonable employment commences, it is critical to employers and employees alike that it be clear which worker
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|