Smitter v. Thornapple Township
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
- Franks v. White Pine Copper DivisionMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Klooster v. City of CharlevoixMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
- Hoste v. Shanty Creek Management, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Flint & Fentonville Plank-road Co. v. WoodhullMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.