Holt v. Berrien Mental Health & The Accident Fund Co., 111306 MIWC, 2006-264

• Case Date: November 13, 2006
• Court: Michigan

Linda Holt ( xxx) PLAINTIFF v. Berrien Mental Health & The Accident Fund Company DEFENDANTS No. 2006-264 Michigan Workers Compensation State of Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Board of Magistrates November 13, 2006           Kevin S Anderson P48851           Daniel W Grow P48626           PETITION TO STOP OPINION AND ORDER           PAUL H. REINHARDT, MAGISTRATE, JUDGE          Procedural History          This matter is currently pending before the Appellate Commission. Simultaneously, it was scheduled for trial on 6/6/2006 on Defendant’s Petition to Stop. The following is a procedural history of the matter insofar as we are able to document and reconstruct it from Agency records and our notes. There have been isolated verbal references, however, to a Circuit Court case, about which we have no information.          1. Magistrate Benjamin Kielton tried the case on 4/8/2003, issuing his Opinion and Order on 5/22/03, granting Plaintiff an open award of benefits. Defendant appealed Judge Kielton’s decision.          2. An Order of the Appellate Commission, dated 1/25/2005, affirmed Judge Kielton’s decision in part and remanded it in part, in order to have the magistrate consider the various proofs and perform a valid Sington analysis.          3. On 3/7/2005, because of the fact that Magistrate Kielton is no longer on the bench and the Benton Harbor / St Joseph Docket has been consolidated with the Kalamazoo Docket, the matter was assigned to the writer by Chief Magistrate, Nolish in a letter dated.

a. By letter, dated 3/8/2005, the writer notified attorneys for the parties that we would schedule a Judicial Review date as soon as practicable, in order to determine, among other issues, whether additional proofs would be taken. We met on 3/24/2005 and set a date of 5/18/2005 at which time additional proofs would be taken, if required.

b. After the writer’s initial review of the trial transcript, I was of the opinion that there was sufficient information in the existing trial record to perform the Sington analysis, as directed. Plaintiffs Counsel was also satisfied with the record at trial in terms of the sufficiency of its proofs for the purpose of the ordered Sington evaluation. More importantly, there was no indication in the trial record that Magistrate Kielton had excluded any evidence that would be relevant to a “Sington evaluation.”

         4. On 5/17/2005 Plaintiffs Counsel filed a Rule 5 Notice of Intent to introduce 5 pages of weekly wage and hour records from Defendant employer and also to take testimony from Allen R Edlefson.^[1]The purpose appeared to relate to the refusal of Magistrate Kielton to calculate partial compensation amounts for each week of disability.          5. Also on 5/17/2005, Defense Counsel filed the following motions. ...