Hall v. Chrysler Corp., Docket No. 100947
| Decision Date | 16 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 100947 |
| Parties | James L. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION and Second Injury Fund, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin, O'Hare, Helveston & Waldman, P.C. by Granner S. Ries, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Morrison Zack, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Second Injury Fund.
Lacey & Jones by Gerald M. Marcinkoski, Detroit, for Chrysler Corp.
Before McDONALD, P.J., and KELLY and LaVOY, * JJ.
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted on remand from the Supreme Court a May 26, 1987, order and opinion of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) which dismissed plaintiff's petition for total and permanent disability against defendants Chrysler Corporation and the Second Injury Fund (SIF). 428 Mich. 898, 405 N.W.2d 881.
The facts are undisputed. Plaintiff was originally hired in 1952 to work for Chrysler in Michigan. Following a layoff in 1957, plaintiff was offered, and accepted, a transfer to Chrysler's Newark assembly plant in Delaware where he worked until 1978.
On November 24, 1978, plaintiff petitioned for workers' compensation benefits alleging a July 24, 1973, personal injury, and disablement on June 20, 1978, from occupational disease. Plaintiff was a Delaware resident at this time. Although Chrysler disputed plaintiff's right to benefits, it entered into a settlement agreement on April 28, 1980, to pay weekly benefits of $94. The agreement specified it was not to be determinative of the parties' rights under the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). The order implementing this agreement reflected plaintiff's Wilmington, Delaware, address.
On June 27, 1980, plaintiff filed the instant petition against Chrysler and the SIF alleging total and permanent disability under the WDCA. This petition also reflected plaintiff's Wilmington, Delaware, address. The parties agreed that plaintiff was under a Michigan employment contract but he was not a resident of Michigan at the time of the injury, and that the injury occurred outside Michigan.
Chrysler and SIF moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the parties. The motion to dismiss was granted by the hearing officer and affirmed by the WCAB in a September 11, 1986, order and opinion.
Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal with this Court, which was denied in an order dated November 26, 1986. Plaintiff then applied for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court for consideration as on leave granted, 428 Mich. 898 (1987).
On appeal plaintiff claims the WCAB erred in finding that Michigan lacks jurisdiction over the parties and in dismissing plaintiff's petition. We disagree.
M.C.L. Sec. 418.845; M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(845) states:
This Court has previously held that Sec. 845 of the WDCA is clear and unambiguous and plainly states that in order for the Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation to acquire jurisdiction over an out-of-state injury, the injured employee must both be a resident of Michigan at the time of injury and have concluded a contract for hire in Michigan. Wolf v. Ethyl Corp., 124 Mich.App. 368, 335 N.W.2d 42 (1983). See also Bell v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Co., 141 Mich.App. 802, 369 N.W.2d 231 (1985). In a carefully reasoned opinion, the Wolf Court distinguished the Roberts v. I.X.L. Glass Corp., 259 Mich. 644, 244 N.W. 188 (1932), decision as inapplicable to the current mandatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. W.G. Wade Shows
...Wolf, supra at 370, 335 N.W.2d 42. A few years later, the Court of Appeals followed Wolf in a similar case. In Hall v. Chrysler Corp., 172 Mich.App. 670, 432 N.W.2d 398 (1988), reconsideration den. 432 Mich. 931, 442 N.W.2d 625 (1989), the plaintiff was hired in Michigan and later accepted ......
-
Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co.
...employee was an Ohio resident who was injured in Ohio. Thus, the bureau lacked jurisdiction. Finally, in Hall v. Chrysler Corp., 172 Mich.App. 670, 672-673, 432 N.W.2d 398 (1988), the Court of Appeals held that no jurisdiction existed over an out-of-state injury because although the contrac......
-
Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Ent. Inc., Docket No. 137500.
...368, 335 N.W.2d 42 (1983); Bell v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Co., 141 Mich.App. 802, 369 N.W.2d 231 (1985); Hall v. Chrysler Corp., 172 Mich.App. 670, 432 N.W.2d 398 (1988). Karaczewski, 478 Mich. at 44 n. 15, 732 N.W.2d 56. While I agree with the lead opinion's statement that this Court's dec......