 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer v. Grede Vassar3/2/2001
rom active employment and failed to rebut the retiree presumption of MCL 418.373(1); MSA 17.237(373)(1) which provides:
An employee who terminates active employment and is receiving non-disability pension or retirement benefits under either a private or governmental pension or retirement program, including old-age benefits under the social security act , 42 U.S.C. 301 to 1397f, that was paid by or on behalf of an employer from whom weekly benefits under this act are sought shall be presumed not to have a loss of earnings or earning capacity as the result of a compensable injury or disease under either this chapter or chapter 4. This presumption may be rebutted only by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee is unable, because of a work related disability, to perform work suitable to the employee's qualifications, including training or experience. This standard of disability supersedes other applicable standards used to determine disability under either this chapter or chapter 4.
Plaintiff filed an appeal with the WCAC, arguing that defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting Section 373 as a defense because plaintiff did not retire "voluntarily." Plaintiff claimed that Grede Vassar agreed to continue paying him weekly wage loss benefits to induce him to retire, but then repudiated that promise. The WCAC ruled that the reason plaintiff retired is irrelevant to a Section 373 inquiry and that plaintiff's claim of inducement would be properly raised in a circuit court claim for fraud or breach of contract.
Plaintiff also claimed that he was not engaged in "active employment" when he retired because Grede Vassar failed to show that the job he held remained available after his retirement. The WCAC ruled that defendant was not required to show that plaintiff's job "remained available" after he retired but only that plaintiff performed work suitable to his qualifications. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted.
III. Analysis
A. Applicability of Section 373
Findings of fact made or adopted by the WCAC are conclusive on appeal, absent fraud, if any competent evidence in the record supports them. Sell v Mitchell Corp of Owosso, 241 Mich App 235, 249; 615 NW2d 748 (2000). This Court has the power to review questions of law involved in any final order of the WCAC. MCL 418.861; MSA 17.237(861); MCL 418.861a(14); MSA 17.237(861a)(14). We review questions of law de novo. Calovecchi v State, 461 Mich 616, 621-622; 611 NW2d 300 (2000). This Court will not reverse a WCAC decision unless the commission "operated within the wrong legal framework or based its decision on erroneous legal reasoning." Blanzy v Brigadier General Contractors, Inc, 240 Mich App 632, 637; 613 NW2d 391 (2000).
As the WCAC observed, plaintiff's request for relief is narrow: he asks that Grede Vassar be equitably estopped from relying on Section 373 to deny him wage loss benefits because he retired at defendant's inducement. We accord great weight to the WCAC's statutory interpretation "unless such interpretation is clearly wrong." Hoste v Shanty Creek Management, Inc, 459 Mich 561, 569; 592 NW2d 360 (1999). The plain language of Section 373 supports the WCAC's conclusion that the statute only requires a showing that plaintiff retired and that he was able to continue working in active employment. Because the statute is unambiguous, no further judicial construction or interpretation is necessary or permitted. Darling v Inter City Trucking, 221 Mich App 521, 525; 561 NW2d 865 (1997). Nothing in the statute limits its application to voluntary retirements or suggests that evidence of inducement to retire impacts its application. Accordingly, we do not find the WC
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|