Daniel v. Department of Corrections
Michigan Court of Appeals
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
- DiBenedetto v. West Shore HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Popma v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Crilly v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.