Lofton v. Autozone, Inc., 061306 MIWC, 2006-218

Case DateJune 13, 2006
CourtMichigan
SEVELTA LOFTON Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOZONE, INC., EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, and THE SECOND INJURY FUND/DUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS, Defendants.
No. 2006-218
Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth Workers' Compensation Agency Board of Magistrates
June 13, 2006
         The Social Security number and dates of birth have been redacted from this opinion.           H. David Fee (P31128), Attorney for Plaintiff.           William A. Day (P25656), Attorney for Defendant.           Murray R. Feldman (P26274), Attorney for SIF.           OPINION           ANDREW G. SLOSS, MAGISTRATE, JUDGE          PROCEDURAL HISTORY          This matter returns on remand from the Workers Compensation Appellate Commission with the following instructions:
"[W]e remand for a Sington analysis utilizing Stokes as a too) for such analysis."
         ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION          In order to establish a work-related disability, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he has a limitation of his maximum wage-earning capacity in work suitable to his qualifications and training. MCL 418.301(4); MSA 17.237(301 )(4); Sington v Chrysler Com. 467 Mich. 144, 154; 648 N.W.2d 624 (2002). An inability to return to the same or similar work is not enough to establish disability; the claimant is not disabled if the physical limitation does not affect the ability to earn maximum wages in work in which the claimant is qualified and trained. Id, p 156, citing Rea v Regency Olds/Mazda/Volvo. 450 Mich. 1201; 536 N.W.2d 542 (1995). In determining the claimant's maximum wage earning capacity, the factors that the magistrate is to consider include: (1) the particular work that the employee is both trained and qualified to perform; (2) whether there continues to be a substantial job market for such work, and (3) the wages typically earned for such employment in comparison to the employee's wages on the date of injury. Id, p 157. Plaintiff carries the burden of proof by the preponderance of the evidence standard. Aquilina v General Motors Corporation, 403 Mich. 206; 267 N.W.2d 923 (1978).          Once the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT