|
No. 132648
| Fredie Stokes, |
|
Daryl C. Royal |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Worker's Comp Appellate Comm) |
|
|
| DaimlerChrysler Corporation, |
|
Gerald M. Marcinkoski |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Erratum Letter>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Alticor's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Alticor's Supplemental Brief>>
Michigan Self-Insurers' Association, Michigan Manufacturers Association, and Michigan Chamber
of Commerce's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Self-Insurers' Association and Michigan Manufacturers Association's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Fredie Stokes worked for DaimlerChrysler Corporation. His work involved driving forklifts and “mules,” which were small trucks used to transport parts around the plant. Near the end of the 1990s, Stokes began feeling pain in his neck and arms while working. The pain increased until the fall of 1999, when it forced him to stop working. Stokes sought worker’s compensation benefits based on an alleged cervical spine disability. The magistrate initially granted Stokes an open award of wage loss benefits. DaimlerChrysler appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC). The WCAC remanded the case to the magistrate for reconsideration of his determination of disability in light of a then recently released opinion, Sington v Chrysler Corp, 467 Mich 144 (2002). The magistrate was directed to apply the Sington test and determine whether Stokes had “suffered a limitation of his maximum wage earning capacity in work within his qualifications and training.” The magistrate held another hearing, and again granted Stokes an open award of benefits. DaimlerChrysler appealed the magistrate’s decision to the WCAC, which affirmed in a split en banc decision. DaimlerChrysler then sought leave to appeal at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, that court issued a published opinion vacating various portions of the WCAC’s opinion as inconsistent with established law, but affirming the award of benefits because the WCAC’s errors did not affect the result. In the course of analyzing this case, the Court of Appeals described a burden-shifting analysis. First, the employee must produce sufficient evidence to create a prima facie case of disability, such as proof that he or she cannot perform the job that was being performed at the time of the injury, the Court of Appeals explained. If the employee produces such evidence, he or she is entitled to worker’s compensation benefits unless the employer presents evidence “showing that there is in fact real work within the employee’s training and experience, paying the maximum wage, that the employee is able to perform.” In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded, DaimlerChrysler did not produce such evidence, so Stokes was entitled to benefits. One judge dissented. DaimlerChrysler appeals.
Top of Page
|
