Petersen v. Magna Corp.
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Gross v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978
- Boyce v. Grand Rapids Asphalt Paving Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Gilroy v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1991
- May v. Charles Hoertz & SonMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.