Last updated 02-10-09.

1.)  Paige v City of Sterling Heights, 2009 ACO #18 and

       Siegel v Edward C. Levy d/b/a Milford Sand & Gravel Co, 2008 ACO #278

The above two cases after remand regarding the interpretation of MCL 418.375(2) in Paige v City of Sterling Heights, 476 Mich 495 (2006), which overturned the interpretation previously set forth in Hagerman v Gencorp Automotive, 457 Mich 720 (1998) regarding proximate cause.

2.)  Nelson v GMC and Coleman v GMC, 2009 ACO #11

Were two cases with almost identical factual circumstances.  They both dealt with cumulative trauma injuries that are contributed to by employment in both Michigan and subsequently in another state.  Therefore, they were consolidated and heard together.  Section 301(1) provides that in cases like this of a cumulative trauma, the date of injury shall be the last day of work in the employment in which the employee was last subjected to the conditions that resulted in the employee's disability.  A majority of the Commission held that the subsequent contribution in another state does not negate the obligation of the Michigan employer for its contribution to the injury, even in light of Karaczewski.  The majority relied on Smith v Lawerence Baking, 370 Mich 169 (1963) and Arnold v GMC, 456 Mich 682 (1998).  Smith held that the legislature intended our Act to be for Michigan employers and not employers from other states, unless they meet certain criteria.  The minority's position was that because plaintiff was last subjected to the conditions that led to the disability in another state, MCL 418.301(1) requires the subsequent employer to be totally liable.

3.)   Slais v State of Michigan, Dept. of State Police, 2009 ACO #10

En banc opinion:  In a 4-1 decision, the WCAC held that vocational hearings before the magistrate must be recorded.  The hearing before the magistrate is not an appeal and the parties are not limited to submitting the information that was submitted to the director's representative.  The decision was summarized in the following paragraph:

As indicated earlier in this opinion, we believe that even before considering constitutional issues, that the Worker's Disability Compensation Act requires that in rehabilitation hearings before a magistrate, stenographic notes or the use of recording equipment is mandatory. Further, to the extent that the Commission's opinion pertaining to constitutional issues is pertinent, we find that failure to grant such a hearing so recorded before a magistrate would deprive the appellant due process of law. The proceeding before the magistrate is a de novo hearing. Essentially the magistrate is starting over with the evidence. The parties are not limited to submitting the exhibits or "testimony" discussed or used at the informal hearing with the director's representative/mediator. Because there is no record of the informal hearing, practically there would be no way for the magistrate to discern what transpired at the informal hearing level.

4.)  Curtiss v Curtiss Reporting, 2009 ACO #9

Was a case that we used to express when a case will be remanded for purposes of developing the record after Stokes, 2008.  Mr. Curtiss probably did not prove disability under any of the pervious Stokes standards.  The question was, whether or not an appellant had to at least have established disability under the case law at the time of the trial, or the current case law, whichever is less strict.  A majority agreed that this case, and in essence, all cases tried before the Supreme Court issued Stokes on June 12, 2008, and the issue of disability was preserved, should be remanded for further proofs.

5.)  Umlor v Amicare Home Health Services West, 2008 ACO #124

This case discusses the 301(5)(d)(i) "…presumption of wage earning capacity established for employments totaling 250 weeks or more."

6.)  Blackstone v HC Nutting Company, 2008 ACO #127

The issue is jurisdiction over an out of state employer, where injury occurs here in Michigan, and the employer's resident state precludes claims against it in other states.  Is "choice of law" agreement entered into in another state enforceable in Michigan?

7.)   Bennett v Mackinac Bridge Authority/State of Michigan, 2008 ACO #163 

This case explores the application of res judicata to statutory employers under Section 171 of the Act.

8.)   Munster v City of Battle Creek, 2008 ACO #51 

The Commission reviews the application of retroactivity when the Courts establish new case law or overrule longstanding case law. 

9.)   Carter v Southwest Standard Service, 2007 ACO #104 and Smith v Parkland Inn, 2007 ACO #112

Michigan Property and Casualty Guaranty Association (MPCGA) steps into the shoes of a bankrupt "insurer" and is entitled to reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund.

10.)  Reiter v Absopure Water Co, 2007 ACO #127

Control and dissent give differing views of MCL 418.305 (intentional and willful misconduct)

11.)   Leon v A-3, Incorporated, 2007 ACO #147

Discusses independent contractor vs employee.  Section 161(1)(n)