|
No. 128715
| John R. Jacobs, |
|
Michael D. Schloff |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Oakland - Kuhn, R.) |
|
|
| Technidisc, Inc., and Producer's |
|
Mark R. Johnson |
| Color Services, Inc., |
|
|
| Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Michigan Mutual Insurance Company |
|
Gerald M. Marcinkoski |
| n/k/a Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, |
|
|
Intervenor-Appellant. |
|
|
| _________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>> (not available)
Defendants-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>> (not available)
Intervenor-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Intervenor-Appellant's Second Post-Argument Supplemental Brief >>
Director of the Workers' Compensation Agency's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Director of the Workers' Compensation Agency's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Marcia Van Til was injured while helping her husband, a janitor, strip floor wax at his place of employment, Environmental Resources Management (ERM). At her husband’s request, a supervisor agreed to allow Van Til to help her husband; her hours were to be added to her husband’s time card. Van Til suffered severe burn injuries from the chemicals used to strip the wax and was hospitalized. She sued ERM, claiming that it breached its duty to warn her of the dangers of working with such hazardous chemicals. ERM filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute because it involved an injury to an employee. Accordingly, Van Til’s exclusive remedy was worker’s compensation, ERM contended. Van Til also moved for summary disposition, arguing that she was not working under a contract for hire; therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction over her negligence claim, Van Til maintained. The trial court held that Van Til was not an employee under the Worker’s Compensation Disability Act (WDCA) because she was not paid for her work and was therefore a volunteer or “gratuitous worker.” But the court then ruled that ERM was a statutory employer, finding that Van Til’s husband acted as a contractor and arranged for her to perform a “contract of work” for ERM. As a result, the trial court concluded, the exclusive remedy of the WDCA applied; the court dismissed Van Til’s lawsuit. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held in an unpublished opinion that Van Til was an employee under MCL 418.161 and that the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason. Van Til appeals. The Supreme Court will consider whether, under the WDCA, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine if Van Til was an employee and ERM was an employer.
John Jacobs was injured while working for Thomas Goodfellow, Inc., an employer insured by worker’s compensation carrier Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (then known as Michigan Mutual Insurance Company). Amerisure began making worker’s compensation payments to Jacobs. When Jacobs sued a third party to recover for his injuries, Amerisure intervened to assert its statutory right to reimbursement. Jacobs’ lawsuit was settled in 1993, when the parties signed a consent judgment. As part of that settlement, Amerisure was awarded reimbursement for worker’s compensation payments that Amerisure had already made; Jacobs was awarded future worker’s compensation payments at a set rate. In 2003, Jacobs turned 65 years of age and began receiving old age social security benefits; Amerisure then reduced its compensation payments by the amount of the social security benefits. Jacobs responded by filing a motion to enforce the 1993 consent judgment. Amerisure objected that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, but the court ordered Amerisure to resume payment of worker’s compensation payments at the rate stated in the consent judgment. The Court of Appeals, citing a lack of jurisdiction, declined to hear Amerisure’s appeal. Amerisure appeals to the Supreme Court.
Top of Page
|
