Court Opinion

ID: 9676732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:31:14.21285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:50.567112
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
I concur with the majority. I write separately, however, to explain my departure from the lead opinion I signed in Derr v Murphy Motor Freight Lines, 452 Mich 375; 550 NW2d 759 (1996). Today, we move away from Justice Mallett’s Derr opinion and adopt Chief Justice Brickley’s dissenting view. I support the shift to Chief Justice Brickley’s philosophy.
In Derr, supra, this Court examined subsection 301(5) (a) of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.301(5)(a); MSA 17.237(301)(5)(a). The lead opinion held that benefit entitlement arises under subsection 301(5) (a) when an offer of favored work is revoked, regardless of whether the employee is in a period of unreasonable refusal at the time of revocation. Id. at 392. Chief Justice Brickley would have held that an employee must affirmatively end a period of unreasonable refusal before that employee can become entitled to benefit payment. Id. at 395.
McJunkin came before this Court in consolidation with two additional cases, Russell v Whirlpool Financial Corp, 461 Mich 579; 608 NW2d 52 (2000), and Perez v Keeler Brass Co, 461 Mich 602; 608 NW2d 45 (2000). Today’s triad of cases provided us with an *601opportunity to review the interrelationship between subsections 301(5)(a), (d), and (e). As sometimes happens when opportunity knocks, I gained a new perspective after opening the door. I am now persuaded that McJunkin, Russell, and Perez present a favorable approach to analyzing cases arising under subsection 301(5).
The language of subsection 301(5)(a) supports the conclusion that an employee’s subsection 301(5) benefit entitlement is suspended as long as the employee remains in a period of unreasonable refusal. If the employee ends the period of refusal while still disabled, then the employer is bound to pay benefits or extend a reasonable offer of favored work pursuant to subsection 301(5)(a). In cases where the employee loses a job, the employee may also be able to pursue a remedy under subsections (d) and (e).
I am satisfied that Justice Kelly’s opinion safeguards the interests protected by the wdca and gives effect to the language of subsection 301(5)(a). I, therefore, concur with both the rationale and holding of the majority opinion.