Bullard v. TITUS CONSTRUCTION CO.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Bullard v. TITUS CONSTRUCTION CO.

332 N.W.2d 501, 122 Mich. App. 449

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 1983

DocketDocket 56153

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 332 N.W.2d 501 (Bullard v. TITUS CONSTRUCTION CO.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bullard v. TITUS CONSTRUCTION CO., 332 N.W.2d 501, 122 Mich. App. 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

D. S. DeWitt, J.

We granted defendants A. F. Murch Company’s and Pacific Employers Insurance Company’s application for rehearing in this case to consider whether we incorrectly ordered the case remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board for a determination of whether plaintiffs two stepchildren are dependents in fact. We now conclude that remand was unnecessary.

In this Court’s original opinion, 118 Mich App 631; 325 NW2d 521 (1982), we concluded that plaintiffs two stepchildren did not fit within the conclusive presumption of dependency set forth in MCL 418.353(l)(a)(ii); MSA 17.237(353)(l)(a)(ii). However, MCL 418.353(3); MSA 17.237(353X3) only permits an increase in the amount of disability payments when the number of conclusive dependents increases following the employee’s injury. The statute does not provide for an increase for those dependent in fact upon the injured employee. Therefore, it is irrelevant, for purposes of an increase, whether plaintiffs children are, in fact, dependent upon him. Furthermore, under Gusler v Fairview Tubular Products, 412 Mich 270; 315 NW2d 388 (1981), reh gtd 414 Mich 1102; 323 NW2d 909 (1982), the issue of dependency is now moot. Gusler holds that only the maximum benefit is adjustable. Thus, plaintiffs benefits will not exceed two-thirds of plaintiffs average weekly wage irrespective of whether plaintiff has none or three dependents.

The order remanding this case to the appeal board for a determination of whether plaintiff’s children are dependents in fact is vacated. This case is remanded to the appeal board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

D. S. DeWitt, J.

We granted defendants A. F. Murch Company’s and Pacific Employers Insurance Company’s application for rehearing in this case to consider whether we incorrectly ordered the case remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board for a determination of whether plaintiffs two stepchildren are dependents in fact. We now conclude that remand was unnecessary.

In this Court’s original opinion, 118 Mich App 631; 325 NW2d 521 (1982), we concluded that plaintiffs two stepchildren did not fit within the conclusive presumption of dependency set forth in MCL 418.353(l)(a)(ii); MSA 17.237(353)(l)(a)(ii). However, MCL 418.353(3); MSA 17.237(353X3) only permits an increase in the amount of disability payments when the number of conclusive dependents increases following the employee’s injury. The statute does not provide for an increase for those dependent in fact upon the injured employee. Therefore, it is irrelevant, for purposes of an increase, whether plaintiffs children are, in fact, dependent upon him. Furthermore, under Gusler v Fairview Tubular Products, 412 Mich 270; 315 NW2d 388 (1981), reh gtd 414 Mich 1102; 323 NW2d 909 (1982), the issue of dependency is now moot. Gusler holds that only the maximum benefit is adjustable. Thus, plaintiffs benefits will not exceed two-thirds of plaintiffs average weekly wage irrespective of whether plaintiff has none or three dependents.

The order remanding this case to the appeal board for a determination of whether plaintiff’s children are dependents in fact is vacated. This case is remanded to the appeal board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 N.W.2d 501, 122 Mich. App. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-titus-construction-co-michctapp-1983.

Opinion

D. S. DeWitt, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack