Findley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC), which affirmed the magistrate’s denial of benefits.1 We vacate and remand.
I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff began her employment as an assembly-line worker for defendant in 1999. On February 18, 2004, plaintiff fell from a motorized cart driven by her supervisor. She stated that she “flew up,” hit her head, and lost consciousness. Plaintiff claims that her injuries include shoulder and back pain, a closed-head injury, memory problems, depression, and anxiety.
Plaintiff was off of work…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kostamo v. Marquette Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1979
- Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Aquilina v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1978
- Rakestraw v. General Dynamics Land Systems, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
- Schaendorf v. Consumers Energy Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Torme C Findley v. Daimlerchrysler CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 2011