Showing 16 posts by Michael A. Cassar.
On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding whether Governor Gretchen Whitmer had the authority to declare and extend a State of Emergency and issue Executive Orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a lengthy opinion, the Court held that the Governor did not have proper authority because the law upon which she relied is unconstitutional. Read More ›
Michigan Legislators Propose Amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law to Benefit Certain COVID-19 Positive Employees
As you will recall, the Director of the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity promulgated Emergency Rules (“Rules”) on March 30, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As we discussed in a previous blog post, the Rules establish a rebuttable presumption of personal injury for “first response employees” who are diagnosed with COVID-19. Now, the Michigan legislature is getting involved in the issue. Read More ›
Michigan's Emergency Rules Give Personal Injury Presumption to "First Response Employees" with COVID-19
As you know, Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently declared a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of that response, Governor Whitmer, in conjunction with the Director of the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, Jeff Donofrio, promulgated Emergency Rules (“Rules”) regarding workers’ compensation coverage for certain employees working in the health field, including first responders. We discussed the Rules in an earlier article, and we prepared this article in response to several questions we have received from clients in order to clarify some of the ambiguities in the Rules.
To read further on the Emergency Rules surrounding first responders from Foster Swift's Workers' Comp practice group, see more here.
Categories: COVID-19 and Workers' Compensation
In May 2019, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided Kuhlbert v Michigan State University. This case examines several interesting workers' compensation issues which we will analyze in a three-part series. Today, we discuss the case’s complicated facts and procedural history, and whether the plaintiff should be considered an “employee” pursuant to Michigan’s Workers' Disability Compensation Act (the “Act”). For more on the facts surrounding this case, see full article here.
MCL 418.301(5) sets forth the four requirements a claimant must satisfy in order to qualify for workers' compensation wage loss benefits. The claimant must:
- Disclose his qualifications and training,
- Provide a list of jobs he is qualified and trained to perform within the same salary range as the job at which he was injured,
- Demonstrate that the work-related injury prevents him from performing the jobs he identified as within his qualifications and training that pay maximum wages, and
- If he is capable of performing any of the jobs within his qualifications, he must demonstrate that he cannot obtain any of those jobs by showing a good-faith attempt to procure post-injury employment.
When analyzing the fourth element, how does a magistrate determine what is and what is not a good-faith job search effort? For more on what constitutes a good faith job search effort, see full article here.
On April 17, 2019, three Michigan State Representatives introduced House Bill No. 4473 to the Michigan House of Representatives Committee on Insurance. With the introduction of this bill, these legislators seek to have Michigan join several other states across the nation that have enacted, or are considering, workers' compensation legislation that creates a rebuttable presumption that a first responder's post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") arose out of and occurred in the course of their employment. For more on this case, see full article here.