 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cain v. WCAC Waste Management Inc.11/6/2003
unreasonable construction of MCL 418.361 that does not accomplish the statute's twin purposes. As our Supreme Court stated in Cain, supra at 521, benefits for specific losses and benefits for total and permanent disabilities are "unique categories with substantial differences."
"Loss of industrial use" is a special category of total and permanent disability benefits that was added to the total and permanent disability definition after its original formulation. Cain, supra at 512 . This special category, found in subsection (g) of WDCA section 361(3) quoted above, allows recovery for total and permanent disability where there is no anatomical loss but where there is a loss of industrial use. Id. Hence, even if an employee does not suffer actual amputation of one or both legs so as to qualify for specific loss benefits, the employee may nevertheless be entitled to scheduled benefits for injury to both legs if the employee has lost the industrial use of his legs. Id.
The word " oss" in the phrase " oss of both legs" in MCL 418.361(3)(b), the statute upon which the WCAC's award was presumably based, does not indicate on its face whether the provision refers to anatomical loss or industrial loss or a combination thereof. If reasonable minds can differ as to the meaning of a statute, then judicial construction is appropriate. McCaul, supra at 619-620. The court must consider the object of the statute, the harm it is designed to remedy, and apply a reasonable construction that best accomplishes the statute's purpose. Rowell v Security Steel Processing Co, 445 Mich 347, 354; 518 NW2d 409 (1994).
When read in conjunction with subsection (g) of MCL 418.361(3), it becomes clear that " oss" in subsection (b) does not refer to industrial "loss of both legs." The Legislature expressly included "loss of industrial use of both legs" in subsection (g). Therefore, " oss of both legs" in subsection (b) excludes the category of "loss of industrial use of both legs." Under principles of statutory construction, this Court is required to give effect to every statutory clause and to consider the statutory context holistically. Eversman v Concrete Cutting & Breaking, 463 Mich 86, 99; 614 NW2d 862 (2000).
The Legislature's inclusion of "loss of industrial use of both legs" in subsection (g) also reflects the Legislature's judgment that only the industrial loss of both limbs constitutes a total and permanent disability. The Legislature has made the policy decision that loss of industrial use only rises to the level of a total and permanent disability when both legs or both hands or both arms or one leg and one arm have lost their industrial use. MCL 418.361(3)(g).
Accordingly, I do not find that the word " oss" in the phrase " oss of both legs" in MCL 418.361(3)(b) refers to a combination of anatomical loss and industrial loss, which is the result reached by the majority. My construction comports with the object of the total and permanent disability provision and the unique harm it is designed to remedy.
Total and permanent disability benefits is a category of benefits that substantially differs from the specific loss benefits category. Cain, supra at 521. As a threshold matter, the two categories have different statutory bases. Section 2 of WDCA section 361 delineates the specific losses for which benefits will be paid, whereas section 3 of WDCA section 361 delineates the total and permanent disabilities for which benefits will be paid. Moreover, benefits for a specific loss predicated on a loss of industrial use are awarded for the claimant's loss, not for his or her disability; benefits for a total and permanent disability premised on a loss of industrial use of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|