Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 418 / Act 317 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.357 (2026)

Employee 65 or older; reduction of weekly payments; exception.

✓ 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


418.357 Employee 65 or older; reduction of weekly payments; exception.

Sec. 357.

    (1) When an employee who is receiving weekly payments or is entitled to weekly payments reaches or has reached or passed the age of 65, the weekly payments for each year following his or her sixty-fifth birthday shall be reduced by 5% of the weekly payment paid or payable at age 65, but not to less than 50% of the weekly benefit paid or payable at age 65, so that on his or her seventy-fifth birthday the weekly payments shall have been reduced by 50%; after which there shall not be a further reduction for the duration of the employee's life. Weekly payments shall not be reduced below the minimum weekly benefit as provided in this act.

    (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to a person 65 years of age or over otherwise eligible and receiving weekly payments who is not eligible for benefits under the social security act, 42 U.S.C. 301 to 1397f, or to a person whose payments under this act are coordinated under section 354.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 184, Imd. Eff. July 2, 1974 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 32, Imd. Eff. Mar. 10, 1982

Constitutionality Notes:

    This section is not unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the law. Cruz v Chevrolet Grey Iron Division of General Motors Corporation, 398 Mich 117; 247 NW2d 764 (1976).

PopularName Notes:

Act 317

PopularName Notes:

Heart and Lung Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1973–2011 · leading case: Cruz v. Chevrolet Grey Iron Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 247 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cruz v. Chevrolet Grey Iron Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 247 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 12× “Plaintiff challenges a section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (MCLA 418.357; MSA 17.237[357]), providing for reduction in compensation payments to employees over the age of 65, claiming that it denies him equal protection of the law.”
Gusler v. Fairview Tubular Prods., 315 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 8× “B Adjustment of the minimum compensation rates for disabled employees would also impair the effectiveness of MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357), which mandates an annual 5% reduction in benefits for each year after the age of 65 to a minimum of 50% of the benefits paid at age 65.”
In Re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2011 PA 38, 806 N.W.2d 683 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “37 36 There is an obvious distinction between this Court’s recognition that older employees may have relied on an expectation of a certain level of pension, and even on a tax-free pension, and holding that these employees possess a constitutional right to such an exemption.”
Saraski v. Dexter Davison Kosher Meat & Poultry, 520 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “Henry Saraski appeals by leave granted from an order of the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC), permitting post-sixty-five age reductions in his weekly benefits pursuant to MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357). He appeals as well from a WCAC denial of his motion to…”
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 586 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 418.357[1]; MSA 17.237[357][1]. For ease of reference, I use the phrase "subsection 357[1] age sixty-five reduction provisions" below to describe these provisions.”
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 607 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “The section took effect July 1, 1968, 5 and is now found in MCL 418.357(1); MSA 17.237(357)(1). It reads; When an employee who is receiving weekly payments or is entitled to weekly payments reaches or has reached or passed the age of 65, the weekly payments for each year…”
Stozicki v. Allied Paper Co., Inc., 627 N.W.2d 293 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “[2] MCL 418.357. [3] Other subsections provide for coordination with payments under a self-insurance plan, a wage-continuation plan, or a disability insurance policy provided by the employer.”
Krueger v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 492 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357). Defendants appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission alleging in part that the magistrate's order barring them from applying the age-65 § 357 reduction was confusing, unnecessary and should be stricken.”
Lopez v. Flower Basket Nursery, 332 N.W.2d 630 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Issue V: Did the WCAB err in not applying the age 65 reduction in beneñts provided by MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357)? Plaintiff was 56 years old at the time of his injury in April, 1962, and was approximately 70 years of age at the time of the hearing.”
Freij v. St. Peters Evangelical Lutheran Church, 250 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “The defendant employer appeals from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, which ruled that weekly benefits payable to plaintiff could not be reduced pursuant to MCLA 418.357; MSA 17.237(357). That statute provides for yearly reductions of 5% of weekly payments…”
Util. Workers Union v. Consumers Power Co., 453 F. Supp. 447 (E.D. Mich. 1978). “Despite the relatively few individuals who can be expected to earn income during these years, the legislature has provided contin *456 ued benefits for them, presumably to compensate them, at least partially, for the added burden of their occupationally acquired disability.”
Pelkey v. Elsea Realty & Inv. Co., 232 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. 1975). “MCLA 418.357; MSA 17.237(357); MCLA 418.361; MSA 17.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.357(1) — 6 cases
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 607 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 2000). “The section took effect July 1, 1968, 5 and is now found in MCL 418.357(1); MSA 17.237(357)(1). It reads; When an employee who is receiving weekly payments or is entitled to weekly payments reaches or has reached or passed the age of 65, the weekly payments for each year…”
Lincoln v. Gen. Motors Corp., 586 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 418.357[1]; MSA 17.237[357][1]. For ease of reference, I use the phrase "subsection 357[1] age sixty-five reduction provisions" below to describe these provisions.”
Rotondi v. Chrysler Corp., 504 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
Krueger v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 492 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357). Defendants appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission alleging in part that the magistrate's order barring them from applying the age-65 § 357 reduction was confusing, unnecessary and should be stricken.”
Wemmer v. Nat'l Broach & Mach. Co., 280 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.357(2) — 2 cases
Saraski v. Dexter Davison Kosher Meat & Poultry, 520 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “Henry Saraski appeals by leave granted from an order of the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC), permitting post-sixty-five age reductions in his weekly benefits pursuant to MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357). He appeals as well from a WCAC denial of his motion to…”
Krueger v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 492 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357). Defendants appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission alleging in part that the magistrate's order barring them from applying the age-65 § 357 reduction was confusing, unnecessary and should be stricken.”
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.