Legal Opinion · Dissent

Petersen v. Magna Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2009No. Docket 136542 and 136543Published

1DissentYoung, J.

I fully join in part IV of Justice MARKMAN’S dissenting opinion. I further dissent from the majority’s conclusion that “the term ‘prorate’ in MCL 418.315(1) applies only to employers and their insurance carriers,”1 and with Chief Justice KELLY’s conclusion that a workers’ compensation claimant may never be deemed responsible for a portion of the attorney fees incurred because doing so would “violate the remedial goal of the [Worker’s Disability Compensation Act].”2

Normally, a workers’ compensation claimant is responsible for bearing the costs of his portion of the litigation, including…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Gross v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Boyce v. Grand Rapids Asphalt Paving Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Gilroy v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1991
  5. May v. Charles Hoertz & SonMichigan Supreme Court · 1919

6 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