 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sington v. Chrysler Corp.7/31/2002
d in reasonable employment under § 301(5). The magistrate opined that plaintiff had been "performing a regular plant job" after his left shoulder injury and that he was convinced that plaintiff "did not experience any wage loss, whatsoever" because of that injury.
The magistrate further concluded that plaintiff was disabled because of his non-work-related stroke and that, but for the stroke, plaintiff "would have continued at his regular job , a job which was conveniently within his recommended restrictions." Because plaintiff's wage loss was attributable to his stroke rather than his shoulder injury, "his partial disability, based on his . . . workplace injury, not compensable . . . ."
The WCAC affirmed the magistrate's decision. It concluded that the factual record supported the magistrate's determination that plaintiff was performing his "regular job " when he returned to work after the left shoulder injury. Thus, the WCAC stated, the job "did not constitute an accommodation of [plaintiff's] injury, so as to be 'reasonable employment' under Section 301(5)." Accordingly, the WCAC further stated that plaintiff did not have a compensable disability when he continued to "perform his regular job" for defendant after his left shoulder injury because "it was the stroke which clearly and directly was the reason for his subsequent wage loss."
The Court of Appeals reversed the WCAC. 245 Mich App 535; 630 NW2d 337 (2001). The panel held "as a matter of law that defendant offered plaintiff 'reasonable employment' within the meaning of" MCL 418.301(9). Id. at 552. It further concluded that, once an injured employee is engaged in reasonable employment, the specific provisions pertaining to reasonable employment found in § 301(5)(e) take precedence over the general requirement of Haske that, to be compensable, wage loss must be causally linked to work-related injury. Thus, the Court concluded that plaintiff was engaged in reasonable employment at the time of the stroke. Thereafter, we granted defendant's application for leave to appeal.
Critical to the proper resolution of this appeal is how "disability" is defined in the WDCA, MCL 418.301(4). In Haske, this Court adopted an interpretation of "disability" that encompassed any work-related injury that renders an employee unable to do one or more particular jobs within the employee's qualifications and training. Because plaintiff in this case had to be accommodated to some degree in his "floater" position, it can be argued that, under the Haske definition, plaintiff was working at--and "disabled" from--a different job before his left shoulder injury than the reconfigured "floater" job to which he returned after his injury. Thus, when he suffered the stroke, as an employee entitled to reasonable employment status, plaintiff could claim the benefits that flow to an employee performing reasonable employment who, through no fault of his own, loses his ability to continue to perform reasonable employment.
An alternative view of disability advanced by defendant requires a reduction in an employee's actual wage earning capacity in all work suitable to his qualifications and training. Under this approach, an employee would not be disabled if a work-related injury rendered him unable to perform a particular job, but where that limitation did not affect the wages that he could earn. In particular, with regard to plaintiff, defendant argues that, if one examines overall wage earning capacity, plaintiff was not disabled because his postinjury work as a floater caused him no reduction in wage earning capacity. Thus, he was not entitled to be considered a participant in reasonable employment at the time of the stroke and, because the
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.
|
|