Here is an interesting article about alternative means of funding workers' compensation, which depends largely on the laws of a particular jurisdiction and their rules and regulations concerning minimum requirements for workers' compensation systems. I found this article to be a helpful analysis from a practical perspective on different funding mechanisms, as well as from [...]
Category: Workers’ Compensation Cases
Sedgwick Publishes White Paper on Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Deregulation
Attached is an interesting and thorough analysis of deregulation of workers' compensation in Oklahoma. Sedgwick White Paper on WC Deregulation
Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission Issues Definitive Decision Affirming Denial of Benefits Based on Plaintiff’s Inability to Prove Wage Loss Was Result of Work Injury as opposed to Decision to Retire
In this recent case, the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission has affirmed a magistrate's findings that a workers' compensation claimant's decision to retire was the actual cause of her wage loss as opposed to her work injury, which she suffered after she decided to retire. Under MCL 418.301(4) and Sington v. Chrysler Corp., 467 Mich. 144, 160-161 [...]
Court of Appeals Rules Disagreement Over the Terms of Settlement Contract Not an Ambiguity Over What Terms Actually Mean
This is an interesting, if not unsurprising, case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's finding concerning what the terms of a settlement contract were in a dispute over their meaning. The plaintiff and the defendant's insured entered into a settlement agreement in which the plaintiff repaid the insurer an amount to [...]
Fundamental Distinction Between “Medically Distinguishable” Injuries Under Section 301(1) and “Significant Manner Contribution” Test Under MCL 418.301(2) Under Workers Disability Compensation Act Yet to Be Clarified by Courts
There is a confusion among the Workers' Compensation Board of Magistrates and, in some cases, in the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (the Commission) between the proper prima facie injury analysis required of a plaintiff under MCL 418.301 when dealing with the range of types of “preexisting conditions”. Part of this confusion is semantics, i.e., many [...]