{ Banner Image }

Showing 6 posts in Case Law Updates.

Experience Rating in a Pandemic – New Proposal would Exclude COVID-19 Claims from Rate Calculation

COVID-19 ClaimTo date, the State of Michigan has over 66,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with roughly 6,000 deaths. While the curve appears to be flattening, the number of individuals who contract COVID-19 will undoubtedly continue to increase until effective treatments or a vaccination can be developed. As a result of this unprecedented pandemic, certain industries are likely to see an increase in the number of workers’ compensation claims filed in the state and around the country. Read More ›

Categories: Case Law Updates, COVID-19 and Workers' Compensation

The CARES Act Unemployment Expansion, Workers’ Compensation Wage Loss Offset, and Refusing to Return to Work During the Pandemic

Unemployment BenefitsThe Unemployment Offset

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law on March 27th, 2020. One feature of the CARES Act is the Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“PUC”) program, which enhances weekly unemployment benefits administered by individual states by adding an additional $600 weekly supplement to an employee’s maximum weekly unemployment benefit rate. A related program created under the CARES Act, called the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (“PEUC”) program, extends the duration of weekly unemployment benefits by adding an additional thirteen weeks to the maximum recovery period each state otherwise allows. Read More ›

Categories: Case Law Updates, COVID-19 and Workers' Compensation, Employee Benefits

Is an Employee Injured before December 19, 2011 Obligated to look for Work?

Broken FootThe Supreme Court of Michigan recently issued a decision addressing a plaintiff’s obligation to make a good faith job search where the injury arose prior to the 2011 amendments to the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. Bell v. City of Saginaw. Plaintiff Bell was injured in the course of his employment on October 16, 2011. Benefits were voluntarily paid from the date of injury until his return to work. He subsequently went back off when he failed his fitness for duty physical. Workers’ compensation benefits were not reinstated and plaintiff filed suit. To read more about this case and its implications, see full article here.

Categories: Case Law Updates, Workers' Compensation

Appeals Court: J-1 Visa Employee at MSU Ineligible for Workers' Compensation

Work Injury Claim FormIn 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.

Categories: Case Law Updates, Workers' Compensation

Employee or Independent Contractor? The Appellate Commission Applies its Own Facts to Overturn Magistrate’s Decision

BusinessmenIn July 2019, the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (“the Commission”) issued an Opinion in the case of Christopher Parshall v Worden & Company, Inc. In Parshall, the Commission reversed the magistrate’s factual determination that Mr. Parshall was an independent contractor and not an employee as defined by the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (“Act”). To read more on this case and its classification of employee vs. independent contractor, see full article here.

Categories: Case Law Updates, Workers' Compensation

Employee Fraud Not a Condition for an Employer's/Insurer's Recoupment of Overpayment

Employer Holding Ipad The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued a decision which addresses the rights of employers/insurance companies to obtain reimbursement for overpayments made to an injured worker. Iesha Fisher v Kalamazoo Regional Psychiatric Hospital and State of Michigan. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows. Plaintiff Fisher sustained a workplace injury and was voluntarily paid benefits. The employer initiated a recoupment action, alleging that it voluntarily paid Ms. Fisher three months of benefits at an improperly high rate. For more on this case and it's decision, see full article here.

Categories: Case Law Updates, Workers' Compensation