Legal Opinion

Stokes v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 20, 2007No. Docket 268544PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.

Defendant appeals by leave granted the en banc opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) affirming an open award of dis*574ability benefits. Defendant argues that the WCAC committed errors of law in applying the standard of disability under Sington v Chrysler Corp, 467 Mich 144; 648 NW2d 624 (2002), and in concluding that the magistrate had no general authority to grant pretrial discovery. We conclude that the WCAC reached a result in this case — affirming the magistrate’s grant of benefits— that is amply supported by the record, and affirm the result. However, because the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Sington v. Chrysler CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Haske v. Transport Leasing, Inc., IndianaMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Rakestraw v. General Dynamics Land Systems, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Boggetta v. Burroughs Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1962

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stokes v. CHRYSLER LLCMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Stokes v. CHRYSLER LLCMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Stokes v. CHRYSLER LLCMichigan Supreme Court · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API