Michigan Overhead Door Sales & Service, Inc v Gowen – 9.03

Michigan Overhead Door Sales & Service, Inc v Gowen
Digest no. 9.03

Section 28a

Cite as: Michigan Overhead Door Sales and Service, Inc v Gowen, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued November 8, 1984 (Docket No. 84-419470-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Charles Gowen
Employer: Michigan Overhead Door Sales and Service, Inc.
Docket no.: B83 04091 89560
Date of decision: November 8, 1984

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The clear language of the statute requires that one disabled file with the Commission within 45 days of the commencement of the disability except when a medical inability exists.

FACTS: The claimant last worked on July 1, 1981, when he incurred work related injuries. He was hospitalized for 12 days thereafter and received Worker’s Compensation benefits until November 22, 1982. On January 6, 1983, exactly 45 days after he received his last Worker’s Compensation payment, claimant filed for preservation of credit weeks. On that date, he was given a physician’s statement, which was subsequently signed by his physician on January 10, 1983 and returned to the Commission on January 14, 1983. The statement indicated that the claimant’s disability was terminated on September 20, 1982.

DECISION: The claimant is ineligible to preserve his credit weeks.

RATIONALE: The use of the word inability, instead of disability, is important to an understanding of the statute. Inability means unable to file the application and submit the physician’s statement, due to the medical disability. The claimant’s 12 day hospitalization was clearly a medical inability. While the medical disability continued at least until September 20, 1982, at which time the claimant’s physician released him to return to work, there is no evidence of a medical inability to comply with the statute.

The record clearly shows that following the claimant’s hospitalization, he visited his physician and looked for work. “It must be concluded that a patient who visits his physician while disabled, and seeks employment, is medically able to comply with the M.E.S.C. requirements of making written application and submitting a physician’s statement within the time limits set by statute.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 6/91

Abbeg v Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc – 4.15

Abbeg v Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc
Digest no. 4.15

Section 48

Cite as: Abbeg v Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Branch Circuit Court, issued October 5, 1982 (Docket No. 81-12-581 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Clarence Abbeg, et al.
Employer: Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc.
Docket no.: B80 18840 75094, et al.
Date of decision: October 5, 1982

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where “the employer complies substantially with the requirements contained in Commission Administrative Rule 302, the purpose of the notice is accomplished.”

FACTS: The claimants were laid off from August 3 through August 16. The employer had scheduled a plant shut down for this period. “The claimants and their union president were given advance notice by the employer of the intended shutdown and on April 22, 1980, the employer posted notice on the plant’s bulletin board which was followed by the employer’s letter to the union president. … [N]either of the written notices contained any statement regarding any possible effect of the shutdown or payment thereof on the (claimant’s) eligibility for unemployment benefits.”

DECISION: The notice was sufficient to comply with Commission Administrative Rule 302.

RATIONALE: “[T]he employer did comply substantially with the requirements contained in Rule 302 so that the purpose of the notice was accomplished. Written notices failed to mention any possible effect that the August, 1980 shutdown would have on the claimant’s eligibility for unemployment compensation, but in other respects the notice was clear. The dates of shutdown were set forth as was the fact that this was considered a ‘vacation’ shutdown. The letter which the employer sent to the union president further clarified that employees would be required to take vacation during the shutdown to the extent that their vacation had been earned. Further, the employees must have understood the shutdown to be a vacation and circulated a petition of protest which showed they had such understanding.” The payments in question are remuneration under Section 48 of the Act.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
6/91