Cuddington v. United Health Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2012
• Docket Number: Docket No. 303249.
• Citation: 298 Mich.App. 264,826 N.W.2d 519
• Parties: CUDDINGTON v. UNITED HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

298 Mich.App. 264

826 N.W.2d 519

CUDDINGTON

v.UNITED HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

Docket No. 303249.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 15, 2012, at Detroit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2012, at 9:10 a.m.

Hurlburt, Tsiros, & Allweil, P.C., Saginaw (by Mandel I. Allweil), for Raymond Cuddington.

Stephens & Moore, P.C., Oxford (by Phoebe J. Moore), for United Health Services, Inc.

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and BECKERING and GLEICHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this wrongful termination action, plaintiff, Raymond Cuddington, appeals as of right the trial court's order granting the motion of defendant, United Health Services, Inc. (UHS), for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

UHS employed plaintiff for 12 years as a delivery technician. Plaintiff's job duties required him to transport and assemble medical equipment weighing up to 150 pounds. Plaintiff completed his last delivery for defendant on January 7, 2009. On his way back to the UHS office that evening, the van plaintiff was driving slipped on the icy road and collided with another vehicle. Plaintiff called Robert Daniels, president of UHS, and reported the incident. Robert and his wife, Rebecca Daniels, also an officer of the company, arrived at the accident scene and found plaintiff sitting in an ambulance. Plaintiff had “a fat lip and a bruised cheek from hitting the mirror” but elected not to go to the hospital. During the night, however, he developed pain in his shoulder and neck area.

The next morning, plaintiff experienced difficulty getting out of bed and sought medical attention. Plaintiff testified at an unemployment compensation hearing that his wife called UHS at 9:00 a.m. and informed a secretary that he was unable to work because of soreness from the accident. According to plaintiff, Robert called a few minutes later and asked plaintiff why he was not at work. Plaintiff informed Robert that he “was very sore from the accident.” Robert advised plaintiff that he needed to see a doctor. Rebecca took the phone and, as recounted by plaintiff, expressed the following: “[Y]ou ain't hurt, if you were hurt you would have went in the ambulance to the hospital last night. If you don't come into work, you are blanking—blanking fired.” Robert described the same conversation as follows: “My wife got on the phone and basically told him to get his butt to work or he was not going to be employed, because he didn't call in before his shift.” Plaintiff declined to come in, insisting that he was very sore and wanted to see his doctor.

That same morning, plaintiff went to the office of Richard Hall, D.O., his personal physician. While a nurse was taking plaintiff's blood pressure, another nurse announced that Dr. Hall had been called to Saginaw for an emergency. Plaintiff requested that Dr. Hall's office contact UHS to verify the visit. Although he had not yet been examined by Dr. Hall, plaintiff reported for work on January 9, 2009. Robert informed him that he was “done” and needed to leave his keys and gas card at the office.¹

Robert and Rebecca disputed plaintiff's version of events. Robert averred that plaintiff failed to call in before his shift and that plaintiff was terminated after admitting that he did not have a “doctor's slip in accordance with the Employee Manual.” Rebecca claimed that she had terminated plaintiff because he did not show up for work, had not called, and “was insubordinate in regards to reporting to work.”

Plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits and subsequently commenced this action for retaliatory discharge pursuant to MCL 418.301(13),² a provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (“WDCA” or the “Act”), MCL 418.101 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that he had exercised a right protected under the Act by seeking medical treatment for a work-related injury and that defendant violated the Act when it terminated him in retaliation for exercising that right.

Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that plaintiff could not establish a viable cause of action under the WDCA because he did not petition for workers' compensation benefits until after he was terminated. Defendant argued that plaintiff could not sustain a WDCA claim based merely on an intent to claim workers' compensation benefits.

The trial court granted defendant's motion, finding “no indication here that Plaintiff was fired in retaliation for his worker's compensation claim. Plaintiff did not even file his claim until after he had been terminated.”

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 118, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). The trial court did not indicate whether it granted defendant's motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) or (10); however, because the trial court considered documentary evidence beyond the pleadings, we construe the motion as having been granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Krass v. Tri–Co. Security, Inc., 233 Mich.App. 661, 664–665, 593 N.W.2d 578 (1999). In reviewing a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we review the evidence submitted by the parties in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue regarding any material fact. Maiden, 461 Mich. at 120, 597 N.W.2d 817. “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record leaves open an issue on which reasonable minds could differ.” Bennett v. Detroit Police Chief, 274 Mich.App. 307, 317, 732 N.W.2d 164 (2006).

This case requires that we construe the applicable provisions of the WDCA. Issues of statutory construction involve questions of law that we review de novo. Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich. 289, 295, 795 N.W.2d 578 (2011). “The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent, focusing first on the statute's plain language.” Id. at 296, 795 N.W.2d 578. “[U]nless explicitly defined in a statute, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used.” Yudashkin v. Holden, 247 Mich.App. 642, 650, 637 N.W.2d 257 (2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that by alleging that defendant terminated his employment because he exercised a right afforded him under the WDCA—the right to seek medical services for a work-related injury—he pleaded a cognizable retaliation claim under MCL 418.301(13). The evidence supports that plaintiff was terminated after suffering a work-related injury and expressing a need for medical services. We hold that pursuant to the WDCA, plaintiff had a right to seek medical consultation concerning his employment-related injury. Because MCL 418.301(13) contemplates that an employee may pursue a retaliation claim arising from the exercise of this right, the trial court improperly granted summary disposition to defendant. Whether retaliation actually played a role in defendant's decision to terminate plaintiff's employment presents a factual question subject to further development on remand, in accordance with this opinion.

A. RETALIATORY DISCHARGE UNDER THE WDCA

The primary goal of the WDCA is to “promptly deliver benefits to employees injured in the scope of their employment.” Dunbar v. Mental Health Dep't, 197 Mich.App. 1, 6, 495 N.W.2d 152 (1992). Initially, the Act did not contain a retaliatory-discharge cause of action. Wilson v. Acacia Park Cemetery Ass'n, 162 Mich.App. 638, 645, 413 N.W.2d 79 (1987). In 1981 PA 200, the Legislature codified a cause of action for retaliatory discharge by amending the WDCA and adding MCL 418.301(11), which was later reclassified as MCL 418.301(13). Wilson, 162 Mich.App. at 645, 413 N.W.2d 79, 2011 Pa. 266.MCL 418.301(13) now provides:

A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. [Emphasis added].

The plain language of MCL 418.301(13) establishes that a petition for workers' compensation benefits is not a condition precedent to all retaliatory-discharge claims. Rather, the statute creates a cause of action when an employer terminates or otherwise discriminates against an employee in retaliation (1) for filing a complaint under the WDCA, (2) for instituting or causing a proceeding to be instituted under the WDCA, or (3) “because of the exercise by the employee ... of a right afforded by this act.” By including within the prohibitions set forth in MCL 418.301(13) that an employer may not retaliate against an employee who has exercised a protected right, the Legislature recognized that an employer could circumvent the goals of the WDCA by firing an injured employee before the employee had any opportunity to formally initiate workers' compensation proceedings. Had the statute failed to include the final alternative clause, the result would be “a foot race, with the winner being determined by the event to first occur—either the firing of the employee or the filing of a claim with the Workers' Compensation Board.” Bullard v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 113 Fed.Appx. 684, 690 (C.A.6, 2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

B. MEDICAL SERVICES AS A RIGHT UNDER THE WDCA

Having determined that an employee may have a cause of action based on the exercise of a right, we now turn to whether the Act affords employees a right to seek medical services for work-related injuries.

The WDCA does not expressly define the term “right” for purposes of the Act, and this Court has not...