 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer v. Grede Vassar3/2/2001
AC's interpretation of Section 373 clearly wrong.
This Court has held that a plaintiff's reason for retiring is irrelevant in determining whether Section 373 applies. McDonald v Holland Motor, 201 Mich App 285, 287; 506 NW2d 234 (1993). Moreover, this Court has ruled that the statute does not require that a plaintiff's retirement be voluntary. Id. at 288-289. Accordingly, the WCAC did not err in ruling that Grede Vassar's promises prior to plaintiff's retirement are not relevant to the applicability of Section 373.
While the WCAC has no equitable jurisdiction, it may apply equitable principles in appropriate instances to further the purposes of the act. Lulgjuraj v Chrysler Corp, 185 Mich App 539, 544-545; 463 NW2d 152 (1990). As discussed above, " he legislative intent behind ยง 373 was to reform the statute and limit the number of retired workers who were eligible to collect compensation along with a non-disability retirement." Frasier v Model Coverall Service, Inc, 182 Mich App 741, 744; 453 NW2d 301 (1990). Plaintiff's attempt to avoid the presumption on a showing of an inducement to retire would not serve the Legislature's intent to preclude double recovery of both disability and non-disability retirement benefits. Accordingly, the WCAC's refusal to prohibit the application of Section 373 on equitable grounds was not based on erroneous legal reasoning. As the WCAC observed, plaintiff could have brought an action in circuit court for breach of contract or fraud to pursue his claim that Grede Vassar did not pay him all the retirement benefits it promised.
B. Retirement from "Active Employment"
Plaintiff claims that Section 373 does not apply because the inspection job from which he retired did not constitute "active employment."
It is well established that, for purposes of Section 373, "active employment" means "being 'actively on the job and performing the customary work of job.'" Miles v Russell Memorial Hospital, 202 Mich App 6, 9-10; 463 NW2d 152 (1993), quoting Frasier, supra, 182 Mich App 744. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, "active" as used in Section 373 does not mean "labor intensive" employment and does not require that the position be the same as the one plaintiff performed before the injury . Miles, supra, 202 Mich App 9-11. Favored work, including plaintiff's inspection job , constitutes "active employment" for purposes of the statute. Id. at 10-11.
The WCAC did not base its decision on erroneous legal reasoning when it rejected plaintiff's claim that an employer must show the plaintiff's job at retirement remained "available" afterwards because this assertion has no support in the statute or case law. Blanzy, supra, 240 Mich App 637. Moreover, we defer to the WCAC's finding that neither plaintiff nor his doctors considered plaintiff unable to perform the inspection job when he retired. Accordingly, the WCAC did not err in finding that plaintiff retired from "active employment" for purposes of Section 373.
Affirmed.
Richard A. Bandstra
Henry William Saad
Patrick M. Meter
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.
|
|