 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sweatt v. Department of Corrections9/25/2001
FOR PUBLICATION
9:10 a.m.
In this worker 's compensation case, we must decide whether a provision of the statutory scheme governing the operation of the Department of Corrections (DOC), MCL 791.205a, relieves defendant of its responsibility as an employer to pay disability benefits to plaintiff under the Worker 's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq. I conclude that defendant is not relieved of its responsibility to pay benefits under the WDCA and so affirm the majority decision of the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC), affirming en banc the magistrate's open award of benefits, although for reasons different from those relied on by the WCAC.
I.
The facts concerning plaintiff's injury and disability are uncontroverted. Plaintiff was working as a corrections officer and was injured while attempting to physically separate and restrain inmates involved in a fight. The injury required that surgery be performed on his right knee. At the time of the trial of this matter, November 18, 1998, the parties stipulated that plaintiff continued to be disabled as a result of the work-related injury incurred on December 8, 1989.
At the time of plaintiff's injury, defendant maintained a policy that precluded a return to work of any employee who was not one-hundred-percent fit for duty as a corrections officer. In other words, there was no light duty or "favored work" available for injured corrections officers who were not fully recovered from their injuries.
Worker 's compensation benefits were voluntarily paid until January 12, 1995, when plaintiff was incarcerated as a result of a drug conviction. On the authority of MCL 418.361(1), payment of benefits was suspended while plaintiff was incarcerated. At about the same time, defendant rescinded its one-hundred-percent fit-for-duty policy and began to offer light duty/favored work to injured corrections officers who were not fully fit to return to work as corrections officers. Plaintiff was never offered work by defendant after this change in policy.
During his incarceration and after his parole on June 1, 1996, plaintiff worked at various jobs that accommodated his injury-related limitations on stair climbing, standing and lifting. All indications in the record suggest that plaintiff was a willing and able worker within his limitations. When plaintiff was released from prison, the statutory prohibition of § 361 no longer applied, that is, under the WDCA plaintiff was again entitled to disability benefits.
Effective March 25, 1996, the Legislature amended the DOC statute to prohibit defendant from hiring felons. MCL 791.205a. The statute specifically provides:
(1) Beginning on the effective date of this section, an individual who has been convicted of a felony, or who is subject to any pending felony charges, shall not be employed by or appointed to a position in the department.
(3) This section does not apply to a person employed by or appointed to a position in the department before the effective date of this section.
Plaintiff's petition for reinstatement of benefits, after the § 361 bar was lifted on his release from prison, was denied by defendant on the basis of the DOC statutory amendment, and the petition went to trial before the magistrate, who granted an open award of benefits on the basis of an ongoing right knee disability.
Defendant appealed to the WCAC, which heard the matter en banc, and remanded it to the magistrate for an additional finding of fact concerning an offer of reasonable employment. The magistrate filed an opinion on remand, and the case returned to the WCAC
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|