 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. General Motors Corp.10/20/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Talbot, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
Defendant appeals by leave granted the order affirming the magistrate's open award of disability benefits. We reverse and remand. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff started working for defendant in 1964, and began to experience shoulder pain in 1995. He received some treatment at the plant clinic, but he continued working without restrictions until his plant closed on October 4, 1999. Rather than being laid off, plaintiff was placed in defendant's "jobs bank," which was created pursuant to a union demand during contract negotiations to avoid layoffs. While in the jobs bank, plaintiff was required to report to a specific location to await placement in an available job involving manual labor. Plaintiff received full pay and benefits during this time, although he did not perform any work and the employees in the jobs bank would play cards or watch television. If a job became available, plaintiff was obligated to accept it. However, plaintiff was not placed into a job through the jobs bank before he took regular non-disability retirement on August 1, 2000.
Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed an application for hearing, seeking worker 's compensation benefits due to shoulder and knee injuries. The magistrate found the presumption set forth in MCL 418.373 inapplicable, and, awarded benefits based on the conclusion that plaintiff has a limitation of his wage earning capacity in work suitable to his qualifications and training resulting from a job -related personal injury . Relying on its earlier decision in Wisniewski v General Motors Corp, 2003 Mich ACO 53, the WCAC affirmed the magistrate's decision. We granted leave to appeal.
On appeal, our review of a decision of the WCAC is limited to questions of law. If there is any evidence supporting the findings of fact made or adopted by the WCAC, and the WCAC did not misapprehend its administrative appellate role in reviewing decisions of the magistrate, then the courts must treat the WCAC's factual findings as conclusive. Mudel v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691, 709-710; 614 NW2d 607 (2000). A decision is subject to reversal if it is based on erroneous legal reasoning or the wrong legal framework. Wolf v General Motors Corp, 262 Mich App 1, 4; 683 NW2d 714 (2004).
MCL 418.373(1) states:
(1) 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 USC 301 to 1379f, 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.
In Frasier v Model Coverall Service, Inc, 182 Mich App 741, 744; 453 NW2d 301 (1990), the Court determined that § 373 was inapplicable where the claimant was off work and collecting workers' compensation benefits at the time of his non-disability retirement. The Court explained:
The legislative intent behind § 373 was to reform the statute and limit the number of retired worke
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.
|
|