Legal Opinion

Sington v. Chrysler Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 27, 2001No. Docket 225847PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmolensk, P.J.

Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission (wcac) order dated February 14, 2000, which affirmed the magistrate’s decision denying plaintiff’s claim for weekly wage-loss benefits. We reverse and remand to the WCAC for further proceedings.

I. factual and procedural background

Plaintiff worked for defendant over the course of twenty-six years, from 1971 to 1997. Plaintiff performed various production jobs for defendant over the course of his career, including working as an assembler, as a press operator, and stacking and loading parts and equipment.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. DiBenedetto v. West Shore HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Bower v. Whitehall Leather Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Pulver v. Dundee Cement Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Powell v. Casco Nelmor Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1979

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sington v. Chrysler CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Maier v. GENERAL TELEPHONE CO.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Secretary of StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  4. Sington v. Chrysler CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API