 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haske v. Transport Leasing7/30/1997
BAILEY v LEONI TOWNSHIP (AFTER REMAND)
Docket Nos. 102444, 103299. Argued January 14, 1997 (Calendar Nos. 1 2). Decided July 30, 1997.
(Haske) Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission
ANDREW B. HASKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRANSPORT LEASING, INC, INDIANA, Defendant-Appellant, and WOODLANDS HARVESTING, INC, Defendant-Appellee. JOHN R. BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONI TOWNSHIP and THE ACCIDENT FUND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
In this appeal, we are asked to review the Legislature's definition of disability in chapter 3 of the worker's compensation act, MCL 418.301 et seq.; MSA 17.237(301) et seq. We hold that a disability is a personal injury or work-related disease that prevents an employee from performing any work, even a single job, within his qualifications and training under MCL 418.301(4); MSA 17.237(301)(4). We also conclude that an employee must also prove wage loss in order to establish a compensable disability. To prove wage loss, an employee demonstrates that, as a consequence of work-related injury or disease, he has suffered a reduction in his earning capacity. The amount of benefits is based on the employee's actual wage loss.
In application, these basic principles operate to require that an employee must establish (1) a work-related injury, (2) subsequent loss in actual wages, and (3) a causal link between the two. Proof of the three elements will establish that an employee can no longer perform at least a single job within his qualifications and training, thus satisfying the first sentence of subsection 301(4), and that he has suffered a loss in wages, satisfying the second sentence of subsection 301(4). Consistent with the language of subsection 301(4) proofs sufficient to permit the magistrate to find that the subsequent wage loss is attributable to the work-related injury establish a compensable disability. Absence of residual earning capacity is not part of the threshold definition of disability.
In Haske v Transport Leasing, Inc, we hold that the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission applied the wrong definition of disability in reversing the magistrate's grant of benefits for a partial disability. We affirm the Court of Appeals decision and remand to the WCAC to determine whether the award of benefits was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record.
In Bailey v Leoni Twp, the magistrate found that Bailey did not produce evidence that he suffered a loss of his earning capacity, but did so only in the context of applying an erroneous definition of disability. The WCAC applied the proper definition of disability and calculated benefits, but incorrectly stated that the magistrate found as fact that the employee was partially disabled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the WCAC. Thus, both appellate tribunals applied the correct definition of disability, but neither recognized that the magistrate did not make a factual finding of disability. We remand to the magistrate for further findings consistent with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Haske v Transport Leasing
Plaintiff Andrew Haske worked for defendant Transport Leasing as a tractor-trailer driver. On May 18, 1987, he was injured in the course of his employment when his truck tipped over. He suffered injuries to his left arm and leg, and to his neck, which prevented him from engaging in heavy lifting. Haske did not return to Transport Leasing because he was unable to perform the heavy lifting associated with the job. On January 27, 1988, Haske began working for Woodlands Harvesting, driving a truck and hauling woo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|