STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT
Act 240 of 1943
38.21 Duty disability retirement.
Sec. 21.
(1) Except as may be provided otherwise in sections 33 and 34, a member who becomes totally incapacitated for duty because of a personal injury or disease shall be retired, if all of the following apply:
(a) The member, the member's personal representative or guardian, the member's department head, or the state personnel director files an application on behalf of the member with the retirement board no later than 1 year after termination of the member's employment.
(b) The retirement board finds that the member's personal injury or disease is the natural and proximate result of the member's performance of duty.
(c) A medical advisor conducts a medical examination of the member and certifies in writing that the member is mentally or physically totally incapacitated for further performance of duty, that the total incapacitation is probably permanent, and that the member should be retired.
(d) The retirement board concurs in the recommendation of the medical advisor.
(2) Upon appeal to the retirement board, the retirement board, for good cause, may accept an application for a disability retirement allowance not later than 2 years after termination of the member's state employment.
History: 1943, Act 240, Eff. July 30, 1943 ;-- Am. 1944, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 25, Imd. Eff. Feb. 29, 1944 ;-- CL 1948, 38.21 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 200, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1951 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 93, Imd. Eff. Mar. 27, 2002
Notes of Decisions
VanZandt v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 701 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 7× “*595 Furthermore, respondent’s reliance on cases from this Court involving applications for duty-related disability retirement under MCL 38.21 was not misplaced or contrary to the law, as the circuit court determined.”
Nason v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 801 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “215(J)(1), conflicts with our holding, it is disavowed, given that it did not honor the comparable language in MCL 38.21, the statutory provision that governs duty-related disability retirement status and benefits.”
Polania v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 830 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “In Gersbacher v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 145 Mich App 36 ; 377 NW2d 334 (1985), this Court examined a somewhat similar proviso that applied to duty disability benefits under MCL 38.21. With that statute the Legislature authorized the Board to retire an employee for…”
Monroe v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 809 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “35(1) explains, “For purposes of deciding eligibility for disability retirement under MCL 38.21 and 38.24 of the act, a medical examination conducted by 1 or more medical advisors means either a personal medical examination of the member or a review of the application and…”
Knauss v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 372 N.W.2d 643 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff Teresa Knauss applied for disability-retirement benefits, pursuant to MCL 38.21; MSA 3.981(21), in May, 1980. Following a denial by the State Employees’ Retirement System Board, plaintiff filed an appeal in the Ingham County Circuit Court.”
Stoneburg v. State Employees Ret. Sys., 362 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Petitioner appeals as of right from an order of the Lapeer County Circuit Court affirming the decision of the Retirement Board of the State Employees Retirement System to deny petitioner disability retirement benefits pursuant to MCL 38.21; MSA 3.981(21). Joyce M. Stoneburg was…”
Arnold v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 483 N.W.2d 622 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “*138 Section 21 of the State Employees’ Retirement Act, MCL 38.21; MSA 3.981(21), provides in part: Subject to the provisions of sections 33 and 34, upon the application of a member, or his department head, or the state personnel director, a member who becomes totally…”
Bayard v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 372 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“On July 19, 1979, petitioner applied for duty disability retirement benefits pursuant to MCL 38.21; MSA 3.981(21). On September 7, 1979, benefits were granted by the retirement board with the requirement that petitioner submit herself to a reexamination one year later.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.21(l)(b) — 1 case
Nason v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 801 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“215(J)(1), conflicts with our holding, it is disavowed, given that it did not honor the comparable language in MCL 38.21, the statutory provision that governs duty-related disability retirement status and benefits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.