WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969
Act 317 of 1969
418.385 Physical examination of employee; payment; report; copy; evidence; failure of party to provide medical report.
Sec. 385.
After the employee has given notice of injury and from time to time thereafter during the continuance of his or her disability, if so requested by the employer or the carrier, he or she shall submit himself or herself to an examination by a physician or surgeon authorized to practice medicine under the laws of the state, furnished and paid for by the employer or the carrier. If an examination relative to the injury is made, the employee or his or her attorney shall be furnished, within 15 days of a request, a complete and correct copy of the report of every such physical examination relative to the injury performed by the physician making the examination on behalf of the employer or the carrier. The employee shall have the right to have a physician provided and paid for by himself or herself present at the examination. If he or she refuses to submit himself or herself for the examination, or in any way obstructs the same, his or her right to compensation shall be suspended and his or her compensation during the period of suspension may be forfeited. Any physician who makes or is present at any such examination may be required to testify under oath as to the results thereof. If the employee has had other physical examinations relative to the injury but not at the request of the employer or the carrier, he or she shall furnish to the employer or the carrier a complete and correct copy of the report of each such physical examination, if so requested, within 15 days of the request. If a party fails to provide a medical report regarding an examination or medical treatment, that party shall be precluded from taking the medical testimony of that physician only. The opposing party may, however, elect to take the deposition of that physician.
History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985
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
Cited in
17
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · 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 10× “MCL 418.385 requires extensive and specific proofs of injury.”
Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 459 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 9× “MCL 418.385; MSA 17.237(385) provides that "[t]he employee shall have the right to have a physician provided and paid for by himself or herself present at the examination.”
Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 743 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Margules conducted his examinations pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.385 (see Pis.' Resp.”
Stokes v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 727 N.W.2d 637 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “[5] While MCL 418.385 specifically provides for the examination of claimants by the employer's medical experts, there is no statutory counterpart specifically providing for discovery interviews by vocational experts, and the necessary information will often be available in the…”
Prieur v. Acuity, 143 F. Supp. 3d 670 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.385 . Plaintiff contends that Dr.”
Hahn v. Sarah Coventry, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 36 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Danto’s report, as required by MCL 418.385; MSA 17.237(385). Dr. Danto examined the plaintiff on August 18, 1975.”
Price v City of Westland, 547 N.W.2d 24 (Mich. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 418.385; M.S.A. § 17.237(385). On the basis of the doctor's conclusion, the employer may then offer a specific job tailored to fit the limitations, or lack thereof, imposed by the examining doctor.”
Lewis v. Drouillard, 704 F. Supp. 2d 673 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 418.385. The law stipulates that if an employee refuses to participate, “his or her right to compensation shall be suspended and his or her compensation during the period of suspension may be forfeited.”
Nancy Gucwa v. Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “385 states: After the employee has given notice of injury and from time to time thereafter during the continuance of his or her disability, if so requested by the employer or the carrier, he or she shall submit himself or herself to an examination by a physician or surgeon…”
Aliama X Schaumann-Beltran v. Univ. of Michigan Regents (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 3× “311(A), our Supreme Court employed reasoning similar to that of Nemes and arrived at a similar conclusion in construing § 385 of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.385, in Feld v Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 435 Mich 352, 368 ; 459 NW2d 279 (1990) (Opinion by…”
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.