Moore v. Painting

Eer CURIAM.

This case returns to this Court on remand from our Supreme Court, which has asked us to *439determine “whether the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission erred in holding that the decedent had ‘deserted’ the plaintiffs daughter, so as to make the daughter a conclusive dependent under the second sentence of MCL 418.331(b).” Moore v Prestige Painting, 477 Mich 927 (2006). We conclude that decedent Scott Moore did not desert his daughter, Jamie Douglas, and, as a result, Jamie was not a conclusive dependent pursuant to MCL 418.331(b).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises…