|
Nos. 125111, 125180
| Scott M. Cain, |
|
Edward M. Smith |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
Pamela K. Bratt |
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Worker's Comp Appellate Comm) |
|
|
| Waste Management Inc., and |
|
|
| Transportation Insurance Co., |
|
Daniel W. Grow |
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
James M. Straub |
| and |
|
|
Second Injury Fund, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Scott M. Cain, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
Waste Management Inc., and |
|
|
Transportation Insurance Co., |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Second Injury Fund, |
|
Gerald M. Marcinkoski |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
125111 - Plaintiff Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
125180
- Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
125111 - Defendant-Appellant Waste Management and Transportation Insurance Company's
Brief on Appeal>>
125180 - Defendant-Appellant Second Injury Fund's Brief on Appeal>>
Ford Motor Company's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Ford Motor Company's Amicus Curiae Reply Brief>>
Michigan Trial Lawyers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Scott Cain worked as a truck driver and trash collector for defendant Waste Management. In October 1988, an automobile crashed into the back of a Waste Management truck, pinning Cain up against the back of the truck and crushing his legs. Cain's right leg was amputated above the knee, but doctors were able to save his left leg with extensive surgery and bracing. In February 1990, Cain returned to work at Waste Management, handling clerical responsibilities. But his left leg continued to deteriorate, and he suffered a fracture in October. After additional surgery and therapy, Cain returned to work in August 1991. The parties could not agree on the amount of worker's compensation benefits that Cain should receive. Waste Management voluntarily paid for the "specific loss" of Cain's right leg. The Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission found that Cain also sustained the "specific loss" of his left leg, and that he is entitled to "total and permanent disability" benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. The defendants appeal. The issues that the Supreme Court will consider include whether Cain has been properly awarded total and permanent disability benefits, whether the "loss of industrial use" standard can be applied to claims of "specific loss," and whether the Supreme Court's prior decision in Pipe v Leese Tool & Die Co, 410 Mich 510 (1981), should be overruled.
Top of Page
|
