Douglas v. Shoemaker Trucking, 010106 MIWC, 2006-141

• Case Date: January 01, 2006
• Court: Michigan

RICHARD T DOUGLAS SS # xxx Plaintiff, v. SHOEMAKER TRUCKING, Uninsured, Defendant. No. 2006-141 Michigan Workers Compensation State of Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Workers’ Compensation Agency Board of Magistrates January 1, 2006          The social security number and dates of birth have been redacted from this opinion.           Trial was held on 1/12/06 in Flint, Genesee County Michigan.           THE PLAINTIFF Stephanie Arndt, P 66870, for Plaintiff, and on behalf of Blue Care Network.           THE DEFENDANTS No Appearance.           OPINION           MICHAEL T. HARRIS, MAGISTRATE, 199, JUDGE          THE CLAIM          Plaintiff claims injuries to his back and leg.          STIPULATIONS:

1. No stipulations were entered since defendant did not appear in person, by officer, or by counsel.

         ISSUES:

1. Whether plaintiff met with personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on or about the date alleged.

2. Whether the parties are subject to Michigan workers compensation statutes.

3. What was the wage?

4. Whether notice was received and claim was made.

5. Whether a disability resulted from the alleged injury.

6. Whether a wage loss has been incurred, and if so, the term and amount of compensation to be paid as a result.

7. Plaintiff’s entitlement to medical expenses and treatment.

         SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE          Plaintiff testified on his own behalf. Plaintiff was one of 4 employees with the defendant and was there about four months. On the date of the injury, 2/4/04, he injured a meniscus in his knee when he twisted his knee. He made $400 a week and had no fringe benefits. He has one child who is a dependent and pays the support for him.          Plaintiff was off after March 1 2004 until May 9 2004. Then, he went back to work but for a different company. From 8/1/04 through 12/31/04 he was off again for his knee problem. His medical expenses are in exhibit 4 for plaintiff. He has had an MRI and...