Case ID: mich-app_73/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MATHIS v INTERSTATE MOTOR FREIGHT SYSTEM
    Workmen’s Compensation—Benefits—Exclusive Remedy—Statutes.
    Workmen’s compensation benefits are an injured employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer where the employee’s injury is within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (MCLA 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237[101] etseq.).
    
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    81 Am Jur 2d, Workmen’s Compensation §§ 50, 51.
    Appeal from Kent, George R. Cook, J.
    Submitted January 6, 1977, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 28032.)
    Decided February 3, 1977.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    Complaint by Buster Mathis for damages for personal injuries. Accelerated and/or summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Reamon, Williams, Klukowski & Craft, P. C., for plaintiff.
    
      Warner, Norcross & Judd (by William K. Holmes and Gregory G. Prasher), for defendant.
    Before: Beasley, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

The trial court granted defendant an accelerated and/or summary judgment in a suit by plaintiff to recover no-fault personal protection insurance benefits from defendant. Plaintiff appeals and we affirm.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a dock man. He fell and injured his left knee and leg while unloading freight from a semi-trailer.

Plaintiff received workmen’s compensation benefits. He applied for benefits under the no-fault act. MCLA 500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 et seq.

The trial judge held that workmen’s compensation benefits were plaintiffs exclusive remedy. MCLA 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237(101) et seq.

The Supreme Court in Solakis v Roberts, 395 Mich 13, 20; 233 NW2d 1, 4 (1975), said: "When an employee’s injury is within the scope of the act, workmen’s compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy against the employer.”

Affirmed. Costs to defendant.