Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

JULIE M. KENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ALTICOR, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 18, 2009

No. 278090 WCAC LC No. 04-000409

Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Whitbeck and Shapiro, JJ. PER CURIAM. This matter returns to this Court on remand from our Supreme Court for our consideration as on leave granted and with the direction that we evaluate the merits of this appeal in light of Stokes v Chrysler, LLC, 481 Mich 266; 750 NW2d 129 (2008). Kenney v Alticor, Inc, 482 Mich 1008; 761 NW2d 84 (2008). Defendant challenges a determination of the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission ("WCAC") that plaintiff established a compensable workrelated disability as defined in MCL 418.301(1) and Sington v Chrysler Corp, 467 Mich 144; 648 NW2d 624 (2002). We remand for further proceedings. Section 301(1) of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) provides that "[a]n employee, who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment by an employer who is subject to this act at the time of the injury, shall be paid compensation as provided in this act." MCL 418.301(1). The WDCA defines the term "disability" as "a limitation of an employee's wage earning capacity in work suitable to his or her qualifications and training resulting from a personal injury or work related disease." MCL 418.301(4). In Sington, supra at 156-157, our Supreme Court ruled that a condition that renders an employee unable to perform a job paying the maximum salary, given the employee's qualifications and training, but leaving the employee free to perform an equally well-paying position suitable to his qualifications and training, does not constitute a disability. Only when the employee is no longer able to perform any of the jobs that pay the maximum wages, given the employee's training and qualifications, is a disability established under

Download JULIE M KENNEY V ALTICOR INC.pdf

Michigan Law