WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969
Act 317 of 1969
418.356 Increase in benefits after 2 years of continuous disability; petition for hearing; evidence; order for adjustment of compensation; payment; reimbursement from second injury fund; minimum weekly benefit for death; minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses; total disability; exception.
Sec. 356.
(1) An injured employee who, at the time of the personal injury, is entitled to a rate of compensation less than 50% of the then applicable state average weekly wage as determined for the year in which the injury occurred pursuant to section 355, may be entitled to an increase in benefits after 2 years of continuous disability. After 2 years of continuous disability, the employee may petition for a hearing at which the employee may present evidence that, by virtue of the employee's age, education, training, experience, or other documented evidence which would fairly reflect the employee's earning capacity, the employee's earnings would have been expected to increase. Upon presentation of this evidence, a worker's compensation magistrate may order an adjustment of the compensation rate up to 50% of the state average weekly wage for the year in which the employee's injury occurred. The adjustment of compensation, if ordered, shall be effective as of the date of the employee's petition for the hearing. The adjustments provided in this subsection shall be paid by the carrier on a weekly basis. However, the carrier, the self-insurers' security fund, and the private employer group self-insurers security fund shall be entitled to reimbursement for these payments from the second injury fund created in section 501. There shall be only 1 adjustment made for an employee under this subsection.
(2) The minimum weekly benefit for death under section 321 shall be 50% of the state average weekly wage as determined under section 355.
(3) The minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses stated in section 361(2) and (3) shall be 25% of the state average weekly wage as determined under section 355.
(4) There is no minimum weekly benefit for total disability under section 351.
(5) This section does not apply to an employee entitled to benefits under section 361(1).
History: Add. 1980, Act 357, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 32, Imd. Eff. Mar. 10, 1982 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 271, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1994 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 231, Imd. Eff. June 27, 2014
Compiler's Notes:
For legislative intent as to severability, see Compiler's note to MCL 418.213.
PopularName Notes:
Act 317
PopularName Notes:
Heart and Lung Act
Notes of Decisions
Lesner v. Liquid Disposal, Inc, 643 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Set forth in this opinion is the proper method for determining partial dependent benefits in keeping with the controlling statutory language.”
DiBenedetto v. West Shore Hosp., 605 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 4× “MCL 418.356(1); MSA 17.237(356)(1). The second provision requires termination of an injured employee's wage loss benefits when the employee's average weekly wage (AWW) from subsequent employment exceeds the AWW the employee received before the date of injury.”
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 533 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. 1995).
· cites it 6× “" MCL 418.356(2); MSA 17.237(356)(2). There is no qualifying language that provides that the § 356 minimum only applies to death benefits for wholly dependent persons, as the majority is injecting into § 356.”
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 586 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 7× “§ 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3), which at the present time reads as follows: The minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses stated in section 361(2) [MCL 418.”
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 607 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 4× “6 Without farther appellate guidance, the SIF also concluded that payments to these claimants could not fall below a floor set by MCL 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3), which now provides: The minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses stated in [MCL 418.”
Gusler v. Fairview Tubular Prods., 315 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 1981).
· cites it 2× “[5] Because the death of the employee without dependents would terminate the payment of benefits, § 321 establishes a benefit schedule which begins with one dependent as opposed to no dependents under § 351. [6] MCL 418.357 states: "(1) When an employee who is receiving weekly…”
Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Dep't of Labor, 384 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 2× “These statistics were provided by the chief administrative law judge for Minnesota, who is conducting a survey under the auspices of the Executive Committee of the National Conference of ALJS and the Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration.”
Wozniak v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “237(357), and also held that her minimum benefit rate is twenty-five percent of the state average weekly wage pursuant to § 356(3), MCL 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356X3). Since 1964, plaintiff has been totally and permanently disabled by incurable insanity.”
Rotondi v. Chrysler Corp., 504 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“The minimum rate established by MCL 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3) is not rendered meaningless by application of § 351(2) to plaintiff and those similarly situated, because there are possibly, and probably, many other employees subject to the minimum of § 356(3).”
LePalm v. Revco DS, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“Because § 356(2) of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.356(2); MSA 17.237(356)(2), provides that the "minimum weekly benefit for death under section 321 shall be 50% of the state average weekly wage,” the referee awarded plaintiff fifty percent of the state…”
Kurz v. Michigan Wheel Corp., 601 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“In fact, the Legislature did consider postinjury adjustments to benefits when it enacted MCL 418.356; MSA 17.237(356), which allows the injured employee to petition for a one-time increase in benefits when the employee has been continuously disabled for two years and can…”
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 505 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “60 a week except that MCL 418.356(2); MSA 17.237(356)(2) required a minimum weekly payment of $207.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.356(1) — 2 cases
DiBenedetto v. West Shore Hosp., 605 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. 2000).
“MCL 418.356(1); MSA 17.237(356)(1). The second provision requires termination of an injured employee's wage loss benefits when the employee's average weekly wage (AWW) from subsequent employment exceeds the AWW the employee received before the date of injury.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.356(2) — 4 cases
Lesner v. Liquid Disposal, Inc, 643 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. 2002).
“Set forth in this opinion is the proper method for determining partial dependent benefits in keeping with the controlling statutory language.”
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 533 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. 1995).
“" MCL 418.356(2); MSA 17.237(356)(2). There is no qualifying language that provides that the § 356 minimum only applies to death benefits for wholly dependent persons, as the majority is injecting into § 356.”
LePalm v. Revco DS, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“Because § 356(2) of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.356(2); MSA 17.237(356)(2), provides that the "minimum weekly benefit for death under section 321 shall be 50% of the state average weekly wage,” the referee awarded plaintiff fifty percent of the state…”
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 505 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“60 a week except that MCL 418.356(2); MSA 17.237(356)(2) required a minimum weekly payment of $207.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.356(3) — 6 cases
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 586 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3), which at the present time reads as follows: The minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses stated in section 361(2) [MCL 418.”
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 607 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 2000).
“6 Without farther appellate guidance, the SIF also concluded that payments to these claimants could not fall below a floor set by MCL 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3), which now provides: The minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses stated in [MCL 418.”
Wozniak v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“237(357), and also held that her minimum benefit rate is twenty-five percent of the state average weekly wage pursuant to § 356(3), MCL 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356X3). Since 1964, plaintiff has been totally and permanently disabled by incurable insanity.”
Rotondi v. Chrysler Corp., 504 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“The minimum rate established by MCL 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3) is not rendered meaningless by application of § 351(2) to plaintiff and those similarly situated, because there are possibly, and probably, many other employees subject to the minimum of § 356(3).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.356(4) — 1 case
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 586 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 418.356(3); MSA 17.237(356)(3), which at the present time reads as follows: The minimum weekly benefit for 1 or more losses stated in section 361(2) [MCL 418.”
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.