Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Banks v. LAB Lansing Body Assembly

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 31, 2006No. Docket 259934Published

1ConcurrenceMurray, J.

I concur in the decision to reverse the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission because, for the reasons stated by the majority opinion, under the transactional test adopted in Michigan, plaintiffs subsequent claim for benefits is not barred by res judicata. See Adair v Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 124-125; 680 NW2d 386 (2004). There is no doubt that the two unrelated injuries claimed by plaintiff would not create a convenient trial unit. Id. at 125.

However, it is important to point out what the limitations are, at least in my estimation, in the decision issued today. From a review of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Adair v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Hlady v. Wolverine Bolt Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Askew v. Ann Arbor Public SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Thompson v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1984

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

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

Powered by the Exa API