Wolf v. Ethyl Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 63536 |
| Citation | 124 Mich.App. 368,335 N.W.2d 42 |
| Parties | Charles J. WOLF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ETHYL CORPORATION and Travelers Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Barbier, Goulet & Petersmarck, P.C. by John L. Salter, Mt. Clemens, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lacey & Jones by Gerald M. Marcinkoski, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
Before V.J. BRENNAN, P.J., and KELLY and GRAVES *, JJ.
Plaintiff was involved in a work-related automobile accident in New York in 1969. In 1979, he filed a claim with the Michigan Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation for disability compensation benefits. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Defendants appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, which reversed, 2 to 1, concluding that plaintiff's nonresidency in Michigan at the time of the accident precluded jurisdiction. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted.
Plaintiff was hired by the Ethyl Corporation, a Virginia corporation, in Michigan in 1953. Plaintiff worked for Ethyl Corporation in Michigan until 1965. He was then transferred to New York. From 1965 until 1973, plaintiff worked for Ethyl Corporation in New York and resided in Connecticut. Plaintiff's injury occurred in New York in 1969.
M.C.L. 418.845; M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(845), provides:
This section plainly says 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 the injury and have concluded a contract for hire in Michigan.
The statute is clear and unambiguous. There is no room, therefore, for us to attempt to "construe" the statute by reading the requirement of residency at the time of injury out of the statute. Cf. Michigan Harness Horsemen's Ass'n v. Racing Comm'r, 123 Mich.App. ---, 333 N.W.2d 292 (1983) (explanation statutory construction); Detroit v. Redford, 253 Mich. 453, 455, 235 N.W. 217 (1931) (). Plaintiff was not a resident of Michigan at the time he incurred his out-of-state injury. The bureau could not, therefore, acquire jurisdiction.
We find that the case of Roberts v. IXL Glass Corp., 259 Mich. 644, 244 N.W. 188 (1932), which can be read as suggesting a different result, is not applicable to today's modern mandatory workers' compensation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. W.G. Wade Shows
...Roberts as recognized in Austin, the Court of Appeals has begun to interpret § 845 in contravention of Roberts. In Wolf v. Ethyl Corp., 124 Mich.App. 368, 335 N.W.2d 42 (1983), the plaintiff was hired in Michigan by a Virginia corporation. Following a transfer to and while working in New Yo......
-
Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co.
...Michigan contract or a Michigan resident employee. Thus, no jurisdiction existed over a Wisconsin employer. In Wolf v. Ethyl Corp., 124 Mich.App. 368, 370, 335 N.W.2d 42 (1983), the Court of Appeals stated that jurisdiction required both Michigan residence and a Michigan contract. While the......
-
Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Ent. Inc., Docket No. 137500.
...Before Boyd, several Court of Appeals opinions had enforced the plain language of the statute on this basis. See Wolf v. Ethyl Corp., 124 Mich.App. 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. ......
-
Bell v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Co.
...to subsection 3106(2) without first filing a claim with the Workers' Disability Compensation Bureau. In Wolf v. Ethyl Corp., 124 Mich.App. 368, 369-370, 335 N.W.2d 42 (1983), this Court "MCL 418.845; MSA 17.237(845), provides: " 'The bureau shall have jurisdiction over all controversies ari......