Opinion ID: 1349673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Court's Previous Interpretation of Subsection 301(4)

Text: We recently rejected the interpretation of the provision that we now reconsider in Rea v. Regency Olds, 450 Mich. 1201, 536 N.W.2d 542 (1995). In Rea, the Court of Appeals had held that an employee is `disabled' ... if the employee suffers from any limitation in wage-earning capacity in work suitable to the employee's qualifications and training. 204 Mich.App. 516, 523, 517 N.W.2d 251 (1994). [23] On the basis of this definition, it concluded that the plaintiff was disabled under the statute: [Plaintiff] has suffered a limitation in his ability to perform work suitable to his qualifications and training, in particular the work he was previously doing for defendant. He is disabled even though he may be capable of performing other unskilled work which falls within his medical restrictions. [204 Mich.App. 524, 517 N.W.2d 251.] Hence, according to the Court of Appeals, the plaintiff was injured because he was not able to perform a single position suitable to his qualifications and training, i.e., his previous position. We reversed the Court of Appeals decision in an order by stating: It is not enough for the claimant claiming partial disability to show an inability to return to the same or similar work. If the claimant's physical limitation does not affect the ability to earn wages in work in which the claimant is qualified and trained, the claimant is not disabled. [450 Mich. 1201, 536 N.W.2d 542 (emphasis added).] In rejecting the Court of Appeals interpretation, we noted that an employee must prove more than the fact that he is unable to perform his previous job or other similar work within his qualifications and training; he must prove that his physical limitation has affected his ability to earn wages in work for which he is qualified and trained.