|
No. 119403 & 119410
| Auto-Owners
Insurance Company, |
|
Martin
L. Critchell (313) 961-8690 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Worker's
Comp Appellate Comm)
|
|
|
|
Amoco Production Company,
|
|
Jack L. Hoffman (616) 459-7100 |
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
Daniel J. Bebble (989) 732-7536 |
| -------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Auto-Owners Insurance Company, |
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
| vs |
|
|
| Amoco Production Company, |
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
119403:
Plaintiff-Appellant's
Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Reply Brief>>
Auto Club Insurance Association Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
119410:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply
Brief>>
Background
Amoco employee Leroy Smithingell was injured in an accident involving
his motor vehicle when he arrived for work on January 30, 1994. Amoco's
worker's compensation insurer denied that the accident was work-related,
and refused to pay benefits. Smithingell then filed a claim with Auto-Owners
Insurance, his no-fault automobile insurer, which paid his no-fault
benefits, including wage-loss and medical expenses. Auto-Owners then
filed a petition before a worker's compensation magistrate, seeking
reimbursement from Amoco. The magistrate agreed with Amoco that Smithingell's
injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, but added that
Auto-Owners was not entitled to recover from Amoco the no-fault wage-loss
benefits Auto-Owners paid to Smithingell. Auto-Owners was entitled to
be reimbursed by Amoco for medical expenses, but the reimbursement was
subject to the fee schedule established by the Worker's Disability Compensation
Act (WDCA). The WDCA sets limits on the amount of medical expenses that
a worker's compensation carrier must pay, the magistrate said. Auto-Owners
paid more in medical expenses than a worker's compensation carrier would
have been required to pay. The magistrate ruled that Auto-Owners would
not be reimbursed for the full amount of medical benefits, but only
for that amount that a worker's compensation carrier would have paid.
The Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission affirmed on appeal. Ultimately,
the Court of Appeals ruled that the WDCA, which requires an employer
to reimburse an employee for reasonable medical expenses the employee
paid for a work-related injury, does not authorize full reimbursement
to the no-fault insurer. Auto-Owners appeals.
|
