Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.305 (2026)
Wilful misconduct of employee.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969
Act 317 of 1969
418.305 Wilful misconduct of employee.
Sec. 305.
If the employee is injured by reason of his intentional and wilful misconduct, he shall not receive compensation under the provisions of this act.
History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969
PopularName Notes:
Act 317PopularName Notes:
Heart and Lung ActNotes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1971–2008 · leading case: Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc, 753 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. 2008).
Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc, 753 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. 2008). “This case requires us to consider whether plaintiff's refusal to attend an employer-mandated event constituted "intentional and wilful misconduct" under MCL 418.305, thereby barring her recovery of benefits under the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.”
Daniel v. Dep't of Corr., 658 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. 2003). “In this case we address whether plaintiff, who was disciplined by the Department of Corrections (his employer) for sexually harassing female attorneys, and who suffered depression as a result of the disciplinary proceedings, is barred from worker’s compensation benefits pursuant…”
Eversman v. Concrete Cutting & Breaking, 614 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. 2000). “MCL 418.305; MSA 17.237(305) precludes compensation for injuries "[i]f the employee is injured by reason of his intentional and wilful misconduct.”
Beauchamp v. Dow Chem. Co., 398 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. 1986). “[26] MCL 418.305; MSA 17.237(305). [27] State Commission, n 6 supra at 32.”
Daniel v. Dep't of Corr., 638 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “*179 On appeal to the WCAC, defendant argued as an affirmative defense that plaintiff was precluded from recovering benefits because he was injured by reason of his intentional and wilful misconduct.”
Dean v. Chrysler Corp., 455 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. 1990). “I agree with the separate opinion that Chrysler would not be liable under the quasi-course test if it could prove that Ms.”
Sweatt v. Dep't of Corr., 661 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. 2003). “, injured employees are not entitled to benefits if the injury is “by reason of his intentional and wilful misconduct,” MCL 418.305; the “injury [is] incurred in the pursuit of an activity the major purpose of which is social or recreational,” MCL 418.”
Hammons v. City of Highland Park Police Dep't, 364 N.W.2d 575 (Mich. 1985). “2, is now, without change in language, MCL 418.305; MSA 17.237(305), which reads as follows: "If the employee is injured by reason of his intentional and wilful misconduct, he shall not receive compensation under the provisions of this act.”
Eversman v. Concrete Cutting & Breaking, 568 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “237(301) (3) or MCL 418.305; MSA 17.237(305). MCL 418.301(3); MSA 17.”
Chester v. World Football League, 255 N.W.2d 643 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “See MCLA 418.305; MSA 17.237(305). We feel the broad construction necessary and desirable for this provision justifies finding the assault within the course of the parties' employment.”
Shepard v. Brunswick Corp., 193 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “MCLA § 418.305 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 17.”
Harrison v. Tireman & Colfax Bump & Repair Shop, 232 N.W.2d 274 (Mich. 1975). “MCLA 418.305; MSA 17.237(305). The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board described both plaintiff and defendant as "not impressively credible”.”
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.