Opinion ID: 839438
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: burden of proof to establish a disability

Text: A claimant under the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) must prove his entitlement to compensation and benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. MCL 418.851; Aquilina v. Gen. Motors Corp., 403 Mich. 206, 211, 267 N.W.2d 923 (1978). MCL 418.301(4) provides: As used in this chapter, disability means a limitation of an employee's wage earning capacity in work suitable to his or her qualifications and training resulting from a personal injury or work related disease. The establishment of disability does not create a presumption of wage loss.[ [2] ] Rea v. Regency Olds/Mazda/Volvo, 450 Mich. 1201, 1201, 536 N.W.2d 542 (1995), addressed the burden of proof required to establish a disability: 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. Haske, supra at 662, 566 N.W.2d 896, overruled Rea, stating: Where the employee has carried his burden of proving wage loss, he will, as a practical matter, have proven that he is unable to perform a single job within his qualifications and training, and, therefore, that he is disabled. Subsequently, MCL 418.301(4) was examined thoroughly in Sington, supra at 155-159, 648 N.W.2d 624: As this language plainly expresses, a disability is, in relevant part, a limitation in wage earning capacity in work suitable to an employee's qualifications and training. The pertinent definition of capacity in a common dictionary is maximum output or producing ability. Webster's New World Dictionary (3d College ed). Accordingly, the plain language of MCL 418.301(4) indicates that a person suffers a disability if an injury covered under the WDCA results in a reduction of that person's maximum reasonable wage earning ability in work suitable to that person's qualifications and training. So understood, a condition that rendered an employee unable to perform a job paying the maximum salary, given the employee's qualifications and training, but leaving the employee free to perform an equally well-paying position suitable to his qualifications and training would not constitute a disability.    [T]he language of § 301(4) requires a determination of overall, or in other words, maximum, wage earning capacity in all jobs suitable to an injured employee's qualifications and training. Sington, supra at 161, 648 N.W.2d 624, continued by explicitly overruling the burden of proof set forth in Haske because it was inconsistent with MCL 418.301(4). At the same time, Sington, supra at 156-157, 161, 648 N.W.2d 624, reinstated the prior ruling of Rea, concluding that the procedure established in Rea was harmonious with the statute. Thus, the standard for establishing a prima facie case of disability under Sington requires that the claimant prove a work-related injury, and that injury must result in a reduction of the claimant's maximum wage-earning capacity in work suitable to his qualifications and training. Sington, supra at 155, 648 N.W.2d 624. The WCAC has struggled in consistently applying this standard since Sington.