Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372 (2026)

Employee engaged in more than 1 employment at time of personal injury or personal injury resulting in death; liability; apportionment of weekly benefits; 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

418.372 Employee engaged in more than 1 employment at time of personal injury or personal injury resulting in death; liability; apportionment of weekly benefits; exception.

Sec. 372.

(1) If an employee was engaged in more than 1 employment at the time of a personal injury or a personal injury resulting in death, the employer in whose employment the injury or injury resulting in death occurred is liable for all the injured employee's medical, rehabilitation, and burial benefits. Weekly benefits shall be apportioned as follows:

(a) If the employment which caused the personal injury or death provided more than 80% of the injured employee's average weekly wages at the time of the personal injury or death, the insurer or self-insurer is liable for all of the weekly benefits.

(b) If the employment which caused the personal injury or death provided 80% or less of the employee's average weekly wage at the time of the personal injury or death, the insurer or self-insurer is liable for that portion of the employee's weekly benefits as bears the same ratio to his or her total weekly benefits as the average weekly wage from the employment which caused the personal injury or death bears to his or her total weekly wages. The second injury fund is separately but dependently liable for the remainder of the weekly benefits. The insurer or self-insurer has the obligation to pay the employee or the employee's dependents at the full rate of compensation. The second injury fund shall reimburse the insurer or self-insurer quarterly for the second injury fund's portion of the benefits due the employee or the employee's dependents.

(2) For purposes of apportionment under this section, only wages that were reported to the internal revenue service shall be considered, and the reports of wages to the internal revenue service are conclusive for the purpose of apportionment under this section.

(3) This section does not apply to individuals entitled to benefits under section 161(1)(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (o).

History: Add. 1980, Act 357, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 83, Imd. Eff. Apr. 11, 2012

PopularName Notes:

Act 317

PopularName Notes:

Heart and Lung Act

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1990–2014 · leading case: Smitter v. Thornapple Twp., 833 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smitter v. Thornapple Twp., 833 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 77× “The township initially sought reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund under the dual- employment provisions, MCL 418.372, for the entirety of Smitter’s wage-loss benefits.”

Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund, 625 N.W.2d 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “The factual and statutory background that led to our previous decision not to apply § 372 was set forth in our prior opinion: This worker’s compensation case concerns the application of the dual employment provisions in MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372). Because under the stipulated…”

Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgmt., Inc, 592 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “] [3] MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372) applies when the injury suffered by a claimant precludes the claimant from working not only in the job in which the injury occurred, but also in another job.”

Rahman v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 627 N.W.2d 41 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “215628, defendant Second Injury Fund (SIF) appeals by leave granted the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission’s (wcac) opinion and order affirming the magistrate’s decision granting plaintiff an open award of benefits and ordering defendant SIF to reimburse defendant…”

Lawrence v. Toys R US, 551 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 4× “[7] The knee had earlier been injured in July, 1982 during Lawrence's employment with Toys-R-Us. Lawrence began working for Prompt in January, 1983 and for Plainfield in the summer of 1983.”

Tulppo v. Ontonagon Cnty., 207 Mich. App. 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “i A On appeal to this Court, plaintiff asserts that § 372 of the wdca, MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372), unlike § 371(1), contains no exclusion of the type of employments that may be considered for purposes of determining wage loss, and that only wages that are reported to the…”

Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund, 616 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 418.372(2); MSA 17.237(372)(2) because it did not *162 think that the statutory purpose would be advanced.”

Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgmt., Inc, 561 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “, and whether his primary employment as an electrician constituted dual employment for which he should be compensated under § 372 of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372). The magistrate concluded that although plaintiff did not receive any wages…”

Smith v. Parkland inn/Cas. Reciprocal Exch., 760 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Under the dual employment provision of MCL 418.372, Parkland Inn’s *644 workers’ compensation insurer, Casualty Reciprocal Exchange (CRE), paid plaintiff at her full rate of benefits (which was based on plaintiffs employment with both Parkland Inn and Andoni’s Restaurant), but…”

Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund, 603 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “This worker’s compensation case concerns the application of the dual employment provisions in MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372). Because under the stipulated facts of this case the employee, Kevin Gilbert, was injured in the course of his employment with an employer that did not…”

Lawrence v. Second Injury Fund, 516 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “[MCL 418.372(1) (b); MSA 17.237(372Xl)(b).”

Sharpe v. Angora Enter., 460 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “The fund alleged that the referee: (1) erroneously granted plaintiff compensation benefits since the evidence demonstrated that plaintiff’s husband was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Angora; and (2) incorrectly ordered the fund to pay compensation benefits…”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(1) — 5 cases

Smitter v. Thornapple Twp., 833 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2013). “The township initially sought reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund under the dual- employment provisions, MCL 418.372, for the entirety of Smitter’s wage-loss benefits.”

Lawrence v. Toys R US, 551 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1996). “[7] The knee had earlier been injured in July, 1982 during Lawrence's employment with Toys-R-Us. Lawrence began working for Prompt in January, 1983 and for Plainfield in the summer of 1983.”

Smith v. Parkland inn/Cas. Reciprocal Exch., 760 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Under the dual employment provision of MCL 418.372, Parkland Inn’s *644 workers’ compensation insurer, Casualty Reciprocal Exchange (CRE), paid plaintiff at her full rate of benefits (which was based on plaintiffs employment with both Parkland Inn and Andoni’s Restaurant), but…”

Sharpe v. Angora Enter., 460 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “The fund alleged that the referee: (1) erroneously granted plaintiff compensation benefits since the evidence demonstrated that plaintiff’s husband was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Angora; and (2) incorrectly ordered the fund to pay compensation benefits…”

Lawrence v. Second Injury Fund, 516 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “[MCL 418.372(1) (b); MSA 17.237(372Xl)(b).”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(1)(a) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(1)(b) — 4 cases

Bendion v. Penobscot Mgmt. Co., 570 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Nichols v. Howmet Corp., 855 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(2) — 3 cases

Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund, 625 N.W.2d 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “The factual and statutory background that led to our previous decision not to apply § 372 was set forth in our prior opinion: This worker’s compensation case concerns the application of the dual employment provisions in MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372). Because under the stipulated…”

Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund, 616 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 2000). “§ 418.372(2); MSA 17.237(372)(2) because it did not *162 think that the statutory purpose would be advanced.”

Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund, 603 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “This worker’s compensation case concerns the application of the dual employment provisions in MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372). Because under the stipulated facts of this case the employee, Kevin Gilbert, was injured in the course of his employment with an employer that did not…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(3) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(l)(a) — 2 cases

Tulppo v. Ontonagon Cnty., 207 Mich. App. 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “i A On appeal to this Court, plaintiff asserts that § 372 of the wdca, MCL 418.372; MSA 17.237(372), unlike § 371(1), contains no exclusion of the type of employments that may be considered for purposes of determining wage loss, and that only wages that are reported to the…”

Lawrence v. Second Injury Fund, 516 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “[MCL 418.372(1) (b); MSA 17.237(372Xl)(b).”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.372(l)(b) — 4 cases

Lawrence v. Second Injury Fund, 516 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “[MCL 418.372(1) (b); MSA 17.237(372Xl)(b).”

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.