Munster v. City of Battle Creek, 062805 MIWC, 2006-351

Case DateJune 28, 2005
CourtMichigan
Ronald Munster (xxx) PLAINTIFF
v.
City of Battle Creek and The State of Michigan, Second Injury Fund (Vocationally Handicapped Provisions) DEFENDANTS
No. 2006-351
Michigan Workers Compensation
State of Michigan Department of Labor Economic Growth Workers’ Compensation Agency Board of Magistrates
June 28, 2005
         The social security number and dates of birth have been redacted from this opinion.           James Haadsma P36939           Leonard M Hickey P31575           Christopher Morris P36292           OPINION AND ORDER           PAUL H. REINHARDT, MAGISTRATE, JUDGE          Introduction          This matter is currently before the Board of Magistrates with the 8/4/05 filing of a Form C, Petition to Determine Rights by the City of Battle Creek, (City) asking the Magistrate to order the Second Injury Fund (SIF) to pay benefits following the first 52 weeks of compensation, and medical, hospital and mental health benefits as well. For reasons fully set forth below, we deny the request of the City and dismiss their Application for Mediation or Hearing.          The History & Nature of These Proceedings          The current petition was not the first litigation involving these same issues and parties. They were previously before the Board of Magistrates on a petition filed by the plaintiff on 12/27/2001. In that earlier action the City filed an Application for Mediation or Hearing – Form C, seeking a determination that the SIF is responsible for benefits and for all compensation and cost occurring after 52 weeks from the date of injury, and a determination that the SIF shall reimburse the City of Battle Creek for benefits paid, plus interest.          In an opinion mailed 4/30/2002 former Magistrate Crary Grattan ordered the following.
1 He awarded the plaintiff disability benefits and medical treatment for a 03/03/1997 date of injury.
2 He denied the City’s claim against the SIF on the basis that it was not timely made pursuant to the requirements of MCL 418.925(1) That is, the City failed to comply with the notice provisions required under § 925(1) In doing so, Magistrate Grattan relied on the holding in Robinson v General Motors, 242 Mich.App. 331 (2000)
         The City’s claim in that earlier case was virtually the same as the one made in the instant application by the City.          The course of Magistrate Grattan’s decision on appeal was 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