Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc.green2 sentences2023The Court affirmed the award of benefits, explaining that MCL 418.301(2) required the plaintiff to show that his heart injury was “significantly 14 caused or aggravated by employment considering the totality of all the occupational factors and the claimant’s health circumstances and nonoccupational factors.” Id. at 216-217 . 2023Under the Farrington standard, plaintiff must demonstrate that her workplace fall and resulting medical problems were “significantly caused or aggravated by employment 25 considering the totality of all the occupational factors and the claimant’s health circumstances and nonoccupational factors.” Farrington, 442 Mich at 216-217 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lombardi v. William Beaumont Hospital
green
1 sentence2023The Farrington test was clarified, in part, by Lombardi v William Beaumont Hosp (On Remand), 199 Mich App 428 (1993), which held that the “significant manner” test requires analysis of whether the events occurring at work had more than a minor contributing, aggravating, or accelerating effect in the overall psychiatric scheme, which involves reviewing and comparing all the factors contributing to the disability, both occupational and nonoccupational; in evaluating mental injuries, all nonoccupational factors must be measured against all occupational factors to determine if the significant mann | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gardner v. Van Buren Public Schools
green
2 sentences1996The Court there declared: The heart injury must be significantly caused or aggravated by employment considering the totality of all the occupational factors and the claimant’s health circumstances and nonoccupational factors. 17 In Gardner , the concept, so stated in Farrington , that the determination whether the claimed injury was significantly contributed to, aggravated, or accelerated by the employment, should take into consideration the totality of all the occupational factors and the claimant’s health circumstances and nonoccupational factors, was held to be applicable in mental disabili 1996A claimant’s preexisting condition does not bar recovery . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The Court said that “[a]bsent an explicit legislative mandate, mental disabilities should not be treated differently,” with the result that the inquiry is whether the claimant “regardless of preexisting conditions, sustained an injury that arose out of and in the course of employment.” 39 Id. at 48-49 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.