Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sobotka v. Chrysler Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 1994No. 96170, (Calendar No. 15)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrickley, J.

While I concur in some of the reasoning of the lead opinion, namely, that an inference of total impairment of earning capacity is permitted where a partially disabled employee has not performed any work, I write separately to express my understanding that the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act 1 requires the finder of fact to determine the extent the partial injury has impaired wage-earning capacity. Although I concur with the lead opinion for reversal of the rationale employed by the Court of Appeals, I dissent from affirmance of the wcab. Because the board has never stated that it found…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Crilly v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Carter v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Matter of Jordan v. . Decorative Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
  4. City of Livonia v. Department of Social ServicesMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Bower v. Whitehall Leather Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1981

27 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