Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.441 (2026)

Claim for occupational disease and death resulting from occupational disease; requirements; commencement; time limit.

✓ 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

418.441 Claim for occupational disease and death resulting from occupational disease; requirements; commencement; time limit.

Sec. 441.

(1) The requirements of claim for occupational disease and death resulting from an occupational disease and the requirements as to the bringing of proceedings for compensation for disability or death resulting from the occupational disease are the same as required in chapter 3, except that the claim of occupational disease or death resulting from an occupational disease shall commence from the date the employee or a deceased employee's dependents had knowledge, or a reasonable belief, or through ordinary diligence could have discovered, that the occupational disease or death was work related.

(2) A claim shall not be valid or effectual for any purpose under this chapter unless made within 2 years after the date the employee or dependents of a deceased employee had knowledge, or a reasonable belief, or through ordinary diligence could have discovered that the occupational disease or death was work related.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 357, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982

PopularName Notes:

Act 317

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1972–1985 · leading case: Derwinski v. Eureka Tire Co., 286 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Derwinski v. Eureka Tire Co., 286 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “237[431]), and 441 (MCL 418.441; MSA 17.237[441]). [13] MCL 418.”

Carter v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 194 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Now MCLA 418.441; MSA 17.237(441), which embodies the same provision.”

Ramos v. Prod. Steel Co., 273 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “This notice of the fact of disability (as distinguished from notice of the cause of disability) was *40 clearly timely under MCL 418.441; MSA 17.237(441), which provides that an employee must inform the employer of his disability within 120 days after he learns of his disability…”

Krol v. City of Hamtramck, 248 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. 1976). “229, now, without substantive change, MCLA 418.441; MSA 17.237(441) provides: "The requirements as to notice as to occupational disease and death resulting therefrom and the requirements as to the bringing of proceedings for compensation for disability or death resulting from…”

Meads v. Gen. Motors Corp., 266 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. 1978). “” In this particular case the notice provision as *543 quoted is slightly modified by MCLA 418.441; MSA 17.237(441), which reads as follows: "The requirements of notice of occupational disease and death resulting therefrom and the requirements as to the bringing of proceedings…”

Combs v. Michigan Mobile Homes, 280 N.W.2d 451 (Mich. 1979). “237(381) and that there was insufficient notice of an occupational disease under MCL 418.441; MSA 17.237(441). In so concluding, the appeal board implied that the plaintiff had to make the company aware of the connection between the plaintiffs work and the plaintiffs…”

Hilton v. Gen. Motors Corp., 264 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff appeals to this Court from an adverse decision entered by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board barring the plaintiff from relief under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act because he had failed to give timely and *23 sufficient notice of his disability to his…”

Meads v. Gen. Motors Corp., 260 N.W.2d 143 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “s act shall be maintained, unless a notice of the injury has been given to the employer within 3 months after the happening thereof and unless the claim for compensation with respect to the injury, which claim may be either oral or in writing, has been made within 6 months after…”

Chambers v. Automatic Retailers of Am., 341 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “However, it found that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the alleged lung disability, because plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice provisions of §§441 and 381 of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.441; MSA 17.237(441), MCL 418.381; MSA 17.”

McBeth v. Chrysler Corp., 210 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “Coates v Continental Motors Corp, supra. This case is remanded to the appeal board for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

Richter v. Monarch Stamping Co., 288 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Plaintiff appeals from a Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board ruling denying him benefits for failure to comply with the 120-day notice requirement of MCL 418.441; MSA 17.237(441). Plaintiff was employed by defendant Townsend & Bottum from May 1970 to April 1974 as a carpenter’s…”

Basalla v. Gen. Motors Corp., 363 N.W.2d 466 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “The procedure and practices involved in a disease or disability claim are the same as the procedure and practices used in a personal injury situtation.”

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.