Lofton v. Autozone, Inc.

756 N.W.2d 85, 482 Mich. 1005
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 1, 2008
Docket136029
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 756 N.W.2d 85 (Lofton v. Autozone, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lofton v. Autozone, Inc., 756 N.W.2d 85, 482 Mich. 1005 (Mich. 2008).

Opinion

756 N.W.2d 85 (2008)

Sevelta W. LOFTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUTOZONE, INC., and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendants-Appellants, and
Second Injury Fund (Dual Employment Provisions), Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 136029. COA No. 277845.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

October 1, 2008.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the decision of the Workers' Compensation *86 Appellate Commission mailed April 4, 2007, and we REMAND this case to the Board of Magistrates for reconsideration in light of Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich. 266, 750 N.W.2d 129 (2008). If it is found that the plaintiff is disabled under MCL 418.301(4), but that the limitation of wage earning capacity is only partial, the magistrate shall compute wage loss benefits under MCL 418.361(1), based upon what the plaintiff remains capable of earning. The magistrate assigned to this case may take additional proofs upon request of either party. We DIRECT the magistrate to issue a decision and file that decision with the Clerk of this Court within 126 days of the date of this order.

We retain jurisdiction.

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., would deny leave to appeal.

WEAVER, J. (dissenting).

I dissent from the order vacating the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission and remanding this case to the Board of Magistrates for reconsideration in light of Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich. 266, 750 N.W.2d 129 (2008).

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich. at 320, 750 N.W.2d 129 (Weaver, J., dissenting), I vote to grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether a majority of this Court reached the correct decision in Stokes.

MARILYN J. KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich. 266, 750 N.W.2d 129 (2008).

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

Related

Joseph S Bell v. City of Saginaw
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2019
Robert L McMurtrie v. Eaton Corporation
Michigan Supreme Court, 2011
Kimberly L Vrooman v. Ford Motor Company
Michigan Supreme Court, 2011

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
756 N.W.2d 85, 482 Mich. 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lofton-v-autozone-inc-mich-2008.