Legal Opinion · Dissent

Daniel v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided January 10, 2002No. Docket 224423Published

1DissentO’Connell, J.

I respectfully dissent. By repeatedly sexually harassing female attorneys, plaintiff engaged in intentional and wilful misconduct. Moreover, plaintiff’s resulting mental disability flowed directly and predictably from his behavior. Allowing “serial sexual harasserfs]” to profit from their misdeeds is an untenable result not contemplated by the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (wdca), MCL *107418.101 et seq.1 Because MCL 418.305 operates to bar plaintiffs claim for worker’s compensation disability benefits, I would affirm.

I. THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION’S DECISION

In a…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. DiBenedetto v. West Shore HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Popma v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Crilly v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1958

27 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