 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sington v. Chrysler Corp.7/31/2002
he first sentence of § 301(4) becomes "disability is a limitation after work-related injury or illness in the fitness of an employee to work for wages in work for which the person is qualified and trained." As with my earlier analysis, the proper definition of disability focuses on a limitation in the capacity to perform the work, not on a limitation in the capacity to earn wages, as the majority insists.
The majority's opinion is a study in confusion in other respects, in addition to its reading of § 301(4). For example, it correctly recognizes that a prerequisite to being considered a participant in reasonable employment under MCL 418.301(5) is a determination that the employee has suffered a disability under § 301(4). Slip op at 5-6. However, later it states that, in order to determine whether plaintiff was disabled after his left shoulder injury and before his stroke, the WCAC must inquire whether the work he was doing then was reasonable employment. Slip op at 24.
It concludes, "if defendant . . . would not have accommodated plaintiff's injury , except for it being work related, that would be indicative of a limitation in wage earning capacity." Slip op at 25, n 14. Hence, the fact that the employee obtained reasonable employment under § 301(5) is a factor to be used to determine if the employee was disabled.
III. Conclusion
The majority's reading of MCL 418.301(4) is incorrect. It creates contradictions between the definition of disability and other parts of the statute. Also, the majority opinion is internally contradictory.
Haske accurately interpreted the statute. The majority's rationale for overturning it gives no deference to precedent. It simply replaces its interpretation of the first sentence of § 301(4) with the interpretation of a different group of justices.
Appellate courts, in the normal course of their work, are called upon continuously to reevaluate the lasting vigor of prior courts' binding opinions. Of necessity, some must be found to be no longer valid because of subsequent legislative alterations of the law or changing customs and practices unforeseen by an earlier court. Very occasionally, a prior decision is found to work unexpected hardship. And rarely, a drastic error may be shown to have been made by a prior court in its reasoning or reading of a statute.
So it is that, in the history of this and of the vast majority of supreme courts across the land, overrulings of precedent are infrequent. Yet, quite the opposite is true of the present Michigan Supreme Court. It is for that reason that, the majority's pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding, one may wonder whether reasoned adherence to stare decisis may properly be considered a policy of this Court.
The decision of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
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.
|
|