Legal Opinion · Dissent

Reed v. Yackell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 2005No. Docket 126534Published

1DissentCorrigan, J.

I respectfully dissent from the lead opinion’s determination that plaintiff is an “employee” within the meaning of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq. *542Although I agree with the lead opinion’s analysis of this substantive issue, and would also conclude that plaintiff was Mr. Food’s employee at the time of his accident, I believe that we should first address the question of our jurisdiction.1 It appears that the Worker’s Compensation Bureau (WCB)2 has exclusive jurisdiction over consideration of plaintiffs employment status. I would specifically direct the…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  4. DiBenedetto v. West Shore HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  5. National Wildlife Federation v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2004

30 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