Black v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

341 N.W.2d 157, 128 Mich. App. 606
Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided September 13, 1983·No. Docket 60151·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.

We adopt the facts as stated by our brother Hoehn and agree with his affirmance of plaintiff’s right to compensation. However, we do not conclude that the record in this case requires a reversal as to defendant’s right to set off amounts voluntarily paid. MCL 418.811; MSA 17.237(811) was not ambiguous prior to its amendment. We are persuaded by the Court’s reasoning in Henry v Ford Motor Co, 291 Mich 535; 289 NW 244 (1939), and affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board as this record discloses that defendant has not proven that the wage continuation program which benefited plaintiff was either wages within the meaning of MCL 418.371; MSA 17.237(371) or compensation paid pursuant to the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act.

Affirmed.

D. C. Riley, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Black v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 341 N.W.2d 157, 128 Mich. App. 606 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

341 N.W.2d 157 (Black v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maner v. Ford Motor Co.
493 N.W.2d 909 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1992)
Smith v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
472 N.W.2d 32 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1991)
Black v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
341 N.W.2d 157 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1983)