Dana v American Youth Foundation – 17.20

Dana v American Youth Foundation
Digest no. 17.20

Section 43(u)

Cite as: Dana v American Youth Foundation, 257 Mich App 208 (2003).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Candice Dana
Employer: American Youth Foundation
Docket no.: B97-00302-RO1-147335W
Date of decision: June 24, 2003

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: Service in an Americorps program is not exempt from coverage under Section 43(o)(v). (See statutory amendment described below.)

FACTS: Claimant served in the AmeriCorps program in a program administered by employer. Claimant received a monthly stipend, health insurance, childcare allowance, and an educational award. When she completed her term of service, claimant applied for unemployment benefits.

RATIONALE: The Michigan Court of Appeals held the claimant’s services to be covered employment under Section 43(o)(v). Under Section 43(o)(v) work-relief and work-training programs are exempt from coverage. The Court held that service in the AmeriCorps program was not a work-relief or work-training program and is not exempt from coverage under Section 43(o)(v).

However, AmeriCorps Service is exempt under Section 43 if the service ended on or after July 23, 2004, the effective date of Act 243 Public Acts 2004. The amendment added a new subsection to Section 43-Section 43(u) which provides:

Except as otherwise provided in section 42(6), the term “employment” does not include any of the following:

(u) Service performed in an Americorps program but only if both of the following conditions are met:

(i) The individual performed the service under a contract or agreement providing for a guaranteed stipend opportunity.

(ii) The individual received the full amount of the guaranteed stipend before the ending date of the contract or agreement.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:  
11/04

Canto v McLaren Regional Medical Center – 17.19

Canto v McLaren Regional Medical Center
Digest no. 17.19

Section 43

Cite as: Canto v McLaren Regional Medical Center, St Clair Circuit Court, No. 01-00382-AE (July 23, 2002).

Appeal pending: No*
Claimant: Emmanuel Canto
Employer: McLaren Regional Medical Center
Docket no.: L1999-00047-2736
Date of decision: July 23, 2002

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Participation in an accredited medical residency program is excluded from the MES Act definition of “employment” pursuant to Sections 43(o)(5) and 43(q)(2).

FACTS: Claimant is a doctor who completed employer’s 3-year family practice residency program. The residency program includes didactic work, classroom work, lectures and supervised clinical experience. The residency program was created to develop resident’s clinical skills and train physicians. Residents cannot bill for patient care; Medicare/Medicaid compensates the hospital separately. Residents’ stipends are reimbursed by federal sources. There was no relation between the number of hours worked and the amount claimant was paid. There is no expectation of employment after completion of the residency.

DECISION: The services claimant rendered are exempt from coverage under Sections 43(o)(5) and 43(q)(2).

RATIONALE: Section 43(o)(5) excludes from employment those individuals who are participants in a work-training program that is assisted or financed in whole or in part by a federal agency. Residency programs are “work-training” programs as they impart clinical skills to physicians, which allow them to properly perform their work. These programs are federally funded. Section 43(q)(2) excludes from the definition of employment, “services performed by a college student of any age, but only when the student’s employment is a formal and accredited part of the regular curriculum of the school.” In this matter, claimant was involved in a program that was part of an accredited program of instruction.

*Note an appeal in another case involving this same issue is currently pending at the Michigan Court of Appeals: Bureau of Worker’s Unemployment Compensation v Detroit Medical Center, Mich App Case No. 252777-D

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/04

Detroit Medical Center Corp v Yff – 17.13

Detroit Medical Center Corp v Yff
Digest no. 17.13

Sections 42, 43(o)

Cite as: Detroit Medical Center Corp v Yff, Emmet Circuit Court, No. 97-4502-AE (June 18, 1998); lv den Mich App No. 213896 (December 30, 1998).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Michael Yff
Employer: Detroit Medical Center Corporation
Docket no.: L97-00001-2658
Date of decision: June 18, 1998

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Even though the primary function of the medical residency was to provide additional training, the claimant functioned as an employee. Furthermore, his services were not statutorily excluded.

FACTS: Claimant filed for unemployment benefits after completing his medical residency. He had worked for employer pursuant to a written contract for his services in exchange for compensation of $30,000+ per year with benefits. He was required by his contract to provide medical services to clients of employer at its facility.

DECISION: Claimant’s services are in covered employment under Section 42 and are not excluded under Section 43(o).

RATIONALE: Section 43(o)(5) does not apply to the claimant, claimant was not involved in an unemployment work-relief or work-training program financed by a governmental entity. Claimant worked under the express direction and control of the employer. Services provided by claimant fit the definition of employment in all pertinent respects.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99

Maguire v Charter Township of Shelby – 17.17

Maguire v Charter Township of Shelby
Digest no. 17.17

Sections 42, 43(o)(iii)(E)

Cite as: Maguire v Charter Twp of Shelby, Macomb Circuit Court, No. 95-1828-AE (February 28, 1996).

Appeal pending: No
Claimants: Joseph Maguire, Frances Gillett, Kirby Holmes
Employer: Charter Township of Shelby
Docket no.: L91-11605-2320
Date of decision: February 28, 1996

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimants resigned from non-tenured policymaking/advisory positions to which they were elected and were then hired or appointed to tenured, non-policymaking, non-advisory positions, their services were not excluded even if they essentially continued the same type of work as before.

FACTS: Claimants were elected to positions as township clerk, supervisor and treasurer in November 1988. They all resigned in June 1989, and were appointed to subordinate positions within the township. They were all removed following the November 7, 1990, election. Employer argues the claimants should be denied benefits because of the Section 43(o)(iii)(E) exclusion of high level policymakers in that they were performing policymaking functions even after they left office for their appointed positions and could no longer vote at trustee meetings.

DECISION: The claimants’ employment was not statutorily excluded under Section 43(o)(iii)(E).

RATIONALE: Claimants no longer had ultimate policymaking authority after June 1989, even though they may have rendered great assistance to the policymakers who replaced them.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: Unknown

Apple Crest Farms v Gardner – 17.18

Apple Crest Farms v Gardner
Digest no. 17.18

Section 43(d)

Cite as: Apple Crest Farms v Gardner, Wayne Circuit Court, No. 90-002881-AE (June 4, 1990).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Timothy Gardner
Employer: Apple Crest Farms
Docket no.: B87-16551-109686
Date of decision: June 4, 1990

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The services the claimant performed (cutting the grass and cleaning the grounds of a plot of land where no active farming had taken place for several years) were not agricultural labor and therefore, not excluded “employment.”

FACTS: The employer consists of a 300 acre parcel of land with fruit trees, three houses and surrounding grounds. Seven years prior to the period in question, the orchard produced over 100,000 bushels of apples, peaches and pears annually. The production of fruit was discontinued. The claimant worked for the employer maintaining the grounds, weed cutting, grass cutting, clearing out trees and throwing out dead wood. At the time claimant became unemployed there was no active production of agricultural products on the farm and it was unknown if the orchard would ever resume production.

DECISION: The claimant was performing services in employment under the Michigan Employment Security Act and was eligible to receive benefits.

RATIONALE: The claimant maintained the grounds and trees. He performed work of cutting the grass and cleaning an estate-like plot of land. There is not, nor has there been for the past several years, any farming activity on the land. This was not “agricultural labor.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99

Psychological Services v MESC – 17.14

Psychological Services v MESC
Digest no. 17.14

Sections 42, 44

Cite as: Psychological Services v MESC, Kent Circuit Court, No. 89-64789-AE, (May 4, 1990).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Psychological Services
Docket no.: L87-07843-RO1-1978
Date of decision: May 4, 1990

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where several licensed psychologists paid to use space and clerical services provided by the clinic owner, but conducted separate practices serving clients, they were not employees of the clinic but were independent contractors.

FACTS: Dr. Charles Laufer operates a clinic which provides psychological services. Several individuals who are licensed psychologists see clients at his facility, use the office suite, present their billing information to the office manager employed by Dr. Laufer and pay Dr. Laufer a 40% share of their receivables. Dr. Laufer provides testing supplies and clerical services in addition to office space. These are no written contracts. IRS 1099 forms are issued to the claimants. Dr. Laufer advertises the clinic in the yellow pages under his name. Some of the claimants are not fully licensed (i.e. have limited licenses) and must practice in a fully licensed establishment.

DECISION: Services provided are not in employment and remuneration received was not wages under Section 42 and 44.

RATIONALE: MESC relied on inadequate evidence in reaching its conclusion that services performed by 4 psychologists were in employment. The fact that each contributed 40% of their billings to pay for the overhead does not establish that there was an employer-employee relationship. Reliance on a form filled out only by Dr. Laufer while ignoring his sworn testimony regarding the form was error. Applying the economic reality test yields the conclusion that the psychologists did little more than share expenses at the clinic.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99

Ballenger v Michigan Department of Agriculture – 17.12

Ballenger v Michigan Department of Agriculture
Digest no. 17.12

Section 43(o)

Cite as: Ballenger v Michigan Dep’t of Agriculture, Ingham Circuit Court No. 87-60066-AE (August 10, 1989).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: William Ballenger
Employer: Michigan Department of Agriculture
Docket no.: B85-13688-RO1-103090W
Date of decision: August 10, 1989

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Claimant’s employment as the State Racing Commissioner was a major non-tenured policymaking or advisory position and therefore excluded employment under Section 43(o)(iii)(E) of the Michigan Employment Security Act.

FACTS: The claimant was appointed by Governor Milliken to be the Racing Commissioner. He worked in that position from September 1982 until August 1985 when Governor Blanchard appointed a successor. He filed a claim for unemployment benefits.

DECISION: The services the claimant performed were excluded from consideration as employment under the Michigan Employment Security Act. The claimant was ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: The claimant was appointed to the position of Racing Commissioner by the Governor. A position is “major” if filled by gubernatorial appointment. The position was not covered by the Civil Service system and as such was non-tenured. The claimant admitted the position was policymaking or advisory. The policymaking/advisory nature of the position was confirmed by the position description submitted by the claimant. Thus the position was a major, non-tenured, policymaking or advisory position and was properly excluded from consideration as covered employment.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99