Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smitter v. Thornapple Township

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 2013No. Docket 144354Published

1DissentCavanagh, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that Robert Smitter was a “volunteer fire fighter[]” for purposes of applying MCL 418.354(15) of the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA),1 and, thus, Thor-napple Township was permitted to provide Smitter with uncoordinated benefits. While I do not necessarily disagree with Justice McCormack’s conclusion that the WDCA may allow all employers to decide whether to coordinate workers’ compensation benefits and disability insurance benefits, I do not believe that it is necessary to decide that issue in this case.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Franks v. White Pine Copper DivisionMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Klooster v. City of CharlevoixMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Hoste v. Shanty Creek Management, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Flint & Fentonville Plank-road Co. v. WoodhullMichigan Supreme Court · 1872

3 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