WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969
Act 317 of 1969
418.319 Medical or vocational rehabilitation services.
Sec. 319.
(1) An employee who has suffered an injury covered by this act shall be entitled to prompt medical rehabilitation services. When as a result of the injury he or she is unable to perform work for which he or she has previous training or experience, the employee shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including retraining and job placement, as may be reasonably necessary to restore him or her to useful employment. If such services are not voluntarily offered and accepted, the director on his or her own motion or upon application of the employee, carrier, or employer, after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, may refer the employee to an agency-approved facility for evaluation of the need for, and kind of service, treatment, or training necessary and appropriate to render the employee fit for a remunerative occupation. Upon receipt of such report, the director may order that the training, services, or treatment recommended in the report be provided at the expense of the employer. The director may order that any employee participating in vocational rehabilitation shall receive additional payments for transportation or any extra and necessary expenses during the period and arising out of his or her program of vocational rehabilitation. Vocational rehabilitation training, treatment, or service shall not extend for a period of more than 52 weeks except in cases when, by special order of the director after review, the period may be extended for an additional 52 weeks or portion thereof. If there is an unjustifiable refusal to accept rehabilitation pursuant to a decision of the director, the director shall order a loss or reduction of compensation in an amount determined by the director for each week of the period of refusal, except for specific compensation payable under section 361(1) and (2).
(2) A party may appeal an order of the director under subsection (1) to the Michigan compensation appellate commission within 15 days after the order is mailed to the parties.
History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 266, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 2011
Compiler's Notes:
For legislative intent as to severability, see Compiler's note to MCL 418.213.
Enacting section 2 of Act 266 of 2011 provides:
"Enacting section 2. This amendatory act applies to injuries incurred on or after its effective date."
For the abolishment of the Michigan compensation appellate commission and establishment of the new workers' disability compensation appeals commission within the workers' disability compensation agency in the department of labor and economic opportunity and the transfer of certain powers and duties of the Michigan compensation appellate commission to the workers' disability compensation appeals commission, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.
PopularName Notes:
Act 317
PopularName Notes:
Heart and Lung Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case:
Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 750 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 2008).
Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 750 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 6× “" Even more significantly, what are the standards for the dissent's assertions? If there had been no prior proceedings, would the employer be limited to its personnel files? Must an employer maintain personnel files in specific anticipation of someday having to do a wage-earning…”
Bower v. Whitehall Leather Co., 312 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. 1981).
· cites it 2× “*183 Further, in the area of rehabilitation, the Worker's Disability Compensation Act itself specifically incorporates the factor of reasonableness in judging forfeiture: "If there is an unjustifiable refusal to accept rehabilitation pursuant to a decision of the director, the…”
Frammolino v. Richmond Prods. Co., 260 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “MCLA 418.319; MSA 17.237(319). By providing for such benefits, the Legislature sought to encourage an injured employee to reequip himself for the labor market.”
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.”
Barrett v. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Co., 245 N.W.2d 147 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 418.319(1); MSA 17.237(319)(1) reads in part as follows: "When as a result of the injury he is unable to perform work for which he has previous training or experience, he shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including retraining and job placement,…”
Dolenga v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 463 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “In support of this presumed right, defendants rely upon MCL 418.319; MSA 17.237(319), the provision in the compensation act which relates to rehabilitation services.”
Askew v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 433 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Medical and rehabilitation benefits, MCL 418.319; MSA 17.237(319), death benefits, MCL 418.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.319(1) — 10 cases
Stokes v. Chrysler LLC, 750 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 2008).
“" Even more significantly, what are the standards for the dissent's assertions? If there had been no prior proceedings, would the employer be limited to its personnel files? Must an employer maintain personnel files in specific anticipation of someday having to do a wage-earning…”
Bower v. Whitehall Leather Co., 312 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. 1981).
“*183 Further, in the area of rehabilitation, the Worker's Disability Compensation Act itself specifically incorporates the factor of reasonableness in judging forfeiture: "If there is an unjustifiable refusal to accept rehabilitation pursuant to a decision of the director, the…”
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.”
Barrett v. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Co., 245 N.W.2d 147 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“MCLA 418.319(1); MSA 17.237(319)(1) reads in part as follows: "When as a result of the injury he is unable to perform work for which he has previous training or experience, he shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including retraining and job placement,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.319(2) — 2 cases
Dolenga v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 463 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“In support of this presumed right, defendants rely upon MCL 418.319; MSA 17.237(319), the provision in the compensation act which relates to rehabilitation services.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.319(a) — 1 case
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.