Michigan Workers' Comp Defense Blog
- Posts by Michael A. Cassar
ShareholderMike is a member of the Firm’s Employer Services practice group. His practice focuses on representing employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation matters across Michigan. He has ...
As Michigan employers prepare for another busy summer internship season in 2025, many are welcoming interns to support growing workloads. While most internship experiences will proceed without issue, some employers may face a difficult question: If an intern is injured on the job, are they eligible for Michigan workers’ compensation benefits?
The answer is not straightforward. Determining whether an intern is eligible for Michigan workers’ compensation benefits involves a detailed legal and factual analysis. With limited statutory guidance and evolving case laws ...
Under Michigan workers’ compensation law, compensation benefits are payable to an employee who sustains a personal injury that “arises out of” and “in the course of employment.” “Arises out of” and “in the course of” are two distinct legal requirements. And an injury that happens at work does not necessarily mean that it arose out of the work. An example of this are idiopathic fall cases, which often fall outside the scope of compensable claims.
What is an Idiopathic Fall?
An idiopathic fall is a fall that results from some disease or infirmity that is strictly ...
In a July 28, 2023 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court revisited the criteria for compensability under the Michigan Workers’ Compensation Disability Act (WCDA) in cases involving mental disabilities arising from workplace injuries. The case, Agnes Cramer v Transitional Health Services of Wayne, dealt with an employee who sought workers’ compensation benefits after suffering an electrical shock and falling from a ladder while at work. Ms. Cramer’s alleged injuries included post-traumatic stress disorder.
On February 17, 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its unpublished opinion in Etheridge v. JJ Curran Crane Co., No. 356775, 2022 WL 497352 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2022). This case involved a labor broker and the Exclusive Remedy provision of the Michigan Workers’ 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’s hand. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the lower court, held the injured worker’s civil case was barred by the exclusive-remedy provision, and his only recourse was to seek workers’ compensation benefits from his employer.
On April 1, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lewis v. LexaMar Corp., 971 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. 2022). This reversed a December 17, 2020 decision from the Court of Appeals, which we previously wrote about in this blog. In that case, the Court of Appeals declined to award workers’ 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’ decision and ultimately affirmed the findings of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission awarding the widow benefits.
On January 13, 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its unpublished per curium opinion in the Estate of Allyn Taylor v Outdoor Adventures of Davison, LLC. This case involved the intersection of three of the most significant provisions within the Michigan’s Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA): the exclusive remedy provision, the going to or coming from work provision, and the social or recreational activity provision.
On November 30, 2021, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law House Bill 4171, which expanded eligibility under the First Responder Presumed Coverage Fund.
We have written extensively about changes to Michigan workers’ compensation law in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes came in the form of several executive orders issued by Governor Whitmer and various emergency rules promulgated by the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (“LEO”). LEO promulgated its first Emergency Rules on March 30, 2020. Those Rules established a rebuttable presumption that a “first response employee” who is diagnosed with COVID-19 sustained a compensable work-related injury. Thereafter, the Governor signed various executive orders having similar effect.
DISCLAIMER: This article is intended to provide general legal information. This article does not provide mental health or medical advice and is NOT a substitute for professional therapy or mental health services. If you or someone you know is expecting suicidal thoughts or a crisis, please seek immediate help by contacting the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988.
In recent years, mental health issues and suicide have become increasingly prevalent among Americans. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this crisis. According to a CDC survey from June 2020, the pandemic has “considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions” in U.S adults. Data from the survey indicates that 42 percent of essential workers reported struggling with anxiety and/or depression. Most notably, 11 percent of all respondents seriously considered suicide within the preceding 30 days.
Overall, studies have shown that suicides related to workplace issues are on the rise, and the cause is often increased workplace stress and excessive workloads. Under what circumstances should the family of a worker who takes his or her own life be awarded workers’ compensation benefits? Below, we discuss a recent instructive case from Pennsylvania followed by an overview of how Michigan law handles this increasingly important issue.
Recently, several clients have posed questions regarding the compensability of after-hours injuries that occur on the employers’ premises. While the compensability of these injuries is often in the “grey area,” your determination will be heavily dependent upon the facts of each situation.
What follows is a brief overview of the prevailing case law and a basic framework for making a compensability decision in these types of scenarios.
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage worldwide. At the time of this article being published, there have been nearly 28,000,000 cases and over 485,000 deaths in the United States. Over 600,000 cases and almost 16,000 deaths have occurred in Michigan, alone.
In response to the pandemic, many jurisdictions have implemented various Emergency Rules and Orders to all but ensure compensability for certain delineated essential, frontline and first response employees who contract COVID-19. Other states, like Illinois, have enacted actual legislation that similarly relaxes the burden of proving compensability for some of these favored workers. We have written about these Rules, Orders, and legislation on several occasions over the course of the last year. You can read our most recent article on this topic here.
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion discussing the retroactivity of a prior opinion regarding the right of employers and insurance carriers to seek recoupment of benefits overpaid to an injured worker in the absence of fraud by the worker. Norman Carson v Bandit Industries Inc and Acuity Mutual Insurance Co, __ Mich App _ (2020).
The federal government enacted the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) on March 18, 2020. The FFCRA was intended to provide support to workers who were unable to work while complying with government-mandated quarantines following exposure to COVID-19 or while taking care of someone else in quarantine. The law required employers with fewer than 500 employees (“covered employers”) to pay certain employees Emergency Paid Sick Leave, Emergency Family Medical Leave and/or Expanded Emergency Family and Medical Leave (together, “FFCRA Leave”) as more fully described below.
On December 17, 2020, in an unpublished per curium decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed an award of workers' compensation survivor’s benefits that had been given to a widow whose spouse had been killed while he was traveling to a class the employer had encouraged him to attend and for which the employer had paid pursuant to its employee education assistance and tuition reimbursement program. See Lewis v LexaMar Corp, Mich App __ (2020).
On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the law upon which Governor Gretchen Whitmer relied to extend the State of Emergency after April 30, 2020 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's ruling, which we discuss here, invalidates the Governor's Executive Orders issued during the extended State of Emergency. Executive Order 2020-128, issued on June 18, 2020, established a rebuttable presumption that a "COVID-19 Response Employee" (a term which was not well-defined within the Executive Order) has sustained a compensable injury when he or she is diagnosed with COVID-19. Executive Order 2020-128 contained language quite similar to the March 30, 2020 Emergency Rule issued by the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity ("LEO").
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.
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.
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.
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.
