Case Title: DaimlerChrysler v. LIRC

Citation: 2007 WI 40

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2007 WI 40 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP544 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
DaimlerChrysler c/o ESIS, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Labor and Industry Review Commission and Glenn 
May, 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2007 WI 15 
Reported at: ___ Wis. 2d ___, 727 N.W.2d 311 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 30, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 40
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP544  
(L.C. No. 
2004CV722) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
DaimlerChrysler c/o ESIS, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Labor and Industry Review Commission and Glenn 
May, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 30, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   DaimlerChrysler 
moves 
the 
court 
to 
reconsider its opinion in DaimlerChrysler v. Labor & Industry 
Review Comm'n, 2007 WI 15, ____ Wis. 2d ____, 727 N.W.2d 311, on 
the ground that the court based its decision on a statute not in 
effect when the injury to Glenn May occurred.   
¶2 
The motion for reconsideration is denied.  
¶3 
However, to clarify the DaimlerChrysler opinion, we 
now add the following footnote at the end of the second sentence 
of ¶39: 
No. 
2005AP544   
 
2 
 
17 Wisconsin Stat. § 102.32(6)(b) became effective 
March 30, 2004.  Wis. Act 144.  It was therefore not 
in effect at the time of May's accident.  We draw on 
it here not as a statement of the law in 1999, but 
because it demonstrates that the LIRC's interpretation 
of § 102.18(1)(d) is reasonable.  
¶4 
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied, 
without costs. 
 
 
No. 
2005AP544   
 
 
 
1