 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gunter v. OTM Corp.3/26/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendants' motions for summary disposition, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant OTM when John Burnell, his supervisor, bypassed a malfunctioning safety device on a press. Plaintiff placed his arm inside the danger area of the press to adjust a die. The press operator did not see plaintiff and activated the press. The press cycled because the safety device had been bypassed and plaintiff's left arm was amputated below the elbow. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff's action, concluding that the claims against both defendant OTM and defendant Oakland Tool & Manufacturing (Oakland) were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.131(1).
Issues pertaining to the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA are reviewed, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), to establish whether the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim is barred by the provision. Bock v General Motors Corp, 247 Mich App 705, 709-710; 637 NW2d 825 (2001). We review a decision under MCR 2.116(C)(4) de novo "to determine if the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or whether the affidavits and other proofs show that there was no genuine issue of material fact." Herbolsheimer v SMS Holding Co, Inc, 239 Mich App 236, 240; 608 NW2d 487 (2000).
The WDCA permits recovery for employees injured during the course of employment. Bock, supra at 710. However, this near automatic liability limits an employee's ability to bring a tort action against the employer. Harris v Vernier, 242 Mich App 306, 310; 617 NW2d 764 (2000). MCL 418.131(1) provides:
The right to the recovery of benefits as provided in this act shall be the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease. The only exception to this exclusive remedy is an intentional tort. An intentional tort shall exist only when an employee is injured as a result of a deliberate act of the employer and the employer specifically intended an injury. An employer shall be deemed to have intended to injure if the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. The issue of whether an act was an intentional tort shall be a question of law for the court. This subsection shall not enlarge or reduce rights under law.
Plaintiff contends that Oakland was not his employer and that the circuit court erred in dismissing it from the case. The economic reality test is applied "to determine whether an employment relationship exists for purposes of the exclusive remedy provision, and thus whether an individual or entity is the 'employer' of a given employee." Clark v United Technologies Automotive, Inc, 459 Mich 681, 687; 594 NW2d 447 (1999). The economic reality test looks to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the performed work. The relevant factors considered are: (1) control of a worker's duties; (2) payment of wages; (3) the right to hire, fire and discipline; and (4) performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer's business toward the accomplishment of a common goal. Howard v Dundee Mfg Co, Inc, 196 Mich App 38, 41; 492 NW2d 478 (1992). " hether a business entity is a particular worker's "employer" . . . is a question of law for the courts to decide if the evidence on the matter is reasonably susceptible of but a single inference." Clark, supra at 693-694. However, the issue is one for the trier of fact if evidence of a putative employer's status is disputed or conflicting inferences may reasonably be drawn from
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.
|
|