<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
			<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/rss.xsl' ?>
			<rss version='2.0' xmlns:content='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/'
					xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
					xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
				<channel>
					<title>Michigan Workers' Compensation Defense Blog: Providing Law Updates | Foster
Swift</title>
					<link>https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/2022/</link>
					<atom:link href='https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/2022/?rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
					<description><![CDATA[The latest updates to Michigan Workers' Compensation Defense Blog: Providing Law Updates.]]></description>
					<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 14:57:51 -0400</lastBuildDate>
					
				<item>
				<title>Appeals Court Decides Economic-Reality Test Case Involving Labor Broker</title>
				<link>https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/economic-reality-case-labor-broker</link>
<dc:creator>Michael A. Cassar, Lindsey Mead (Summer Associate)</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>economic-reality-case-labor-broker</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:00:01 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Injured%20Employee%20Filling%20Out%20Form.jpeg" width="275" height="184" title="Injured Employee Filling Out Form" alt="Injured Employee Filling Out Form" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px;" />On February 17, 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its unpublished opinion in<span>&nbsp;</span><em>Etheridge v. JJ Curran Crane Co., No. 356775, 2022 WL 497352 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2022)</em>. This case involved a labor broker and the Exclusive Remedy provision of the Michigan Workers&rsquo; Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). The injured worker, Billy Etheridge, filed a civil lawsuit against the employer of a crane operator whose alleged negligence caused a crush injury to the worker&rsquo;s hand. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the lower court, held the injured worker&rsquo;s civil case was barred by the exclusive-remedy provision, and his only recourse was to seek workers&rsquo; compensation benefits from his employer.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Workers’ Comp Benefits Owed to Widow After Husband Fatally Injured While
Driving to Educational Program</title>
				<link>https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/michigan-court-reverses-benefits-decision</link>
<dc:creator>Michael A. Cassar, Lindsey Mead (Summer Associate)</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>michigan-court-reverses-benefits-decision</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:00:02 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Michigan%20Supreme%20Court.jpeg" width="275" height="183" title="Michigan Supreme Court" alt="Michigan Supreme Court" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 40px;" />On April 1, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in<span>&nbsp;</span><em>Lewis v. LexaMar Corp., 971 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. 2022)</em>. This reversed a December 17, 2020 decision from the Court of Appeals, which we previously wrote about in<span>&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/appeals-court-rejects-comp-benefits-case">this blog</a>. In that case, the Court of Appeals declined to award workers&rsquo; compensation benefits to a widow whose husband was killed in a car accident while driving to a community college class paid for by his employer. The Supreme Court, by a 6-1 majority, reversed the Court of Appeals&rsquo; decision and ultimately affirmed the findings of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission awarding the widow benefits.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Appeals Court Decides Social/Recreational Activity Case</title>
				<link>https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/court-decides-recreational-activity-case</link>
<dc:creator>Alicia W. Birach, Michael A. Cassar, Brian G. Goodenough</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>court-decides-recreational-activity-case</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 09:00:03 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.miworkcompdefenseblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Business%20Man%20Looks%20at%20Case.jpeg" width="275" height="184" title="Business Man Reviewing Case" alt="Business Man Reviewing Case" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px;" />On January 13, 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its unpublished per curium opinion in the <em><a href="https://www.courts.michigan.gov/48e625/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20220113_c355035_50_355035.opn.pdf" data-cke-saved-href="https://www.courts.michigan.gov/48e625/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20220113_c355035_50_355035.opn.pdf">Estate of Allyn Taylor v Outdoor Adventures of Davison, LLC</a></em>. This case involved the intersection of three of the most significant provisions within the Michigan&rsquo;s Workers&rsquo; Disability Compensation Act (WDCA): the <em>exclusive remedy</em> provision, the <em>going to or coming from work</em> provision, and the <em>social or recreational activity</em> provision.</p>]]></description>
</item>

			</channel></rss>