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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.831 (2026)

Compensation; acceptance, effect.

✓ 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


418.831 Compensation; acceptance, effect.

Sec. 831.

    Neither the payment of compensation or the accepting of the same by the employee or his dependents shall be considered as a determination of the rights of the parties under this act.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: Bugg v. Fairview Farms, Inc., 189 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bugg v. Fairview Farms, Inc., 189 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 4× “The current comparable provision is MCLA § 418.831 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 17.”
Allen v. Garden Orchards, Inc, 471 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 6× “[MCL 418.831; MSA 17.237(831). Emphasis added.”
Kennedy v. R.W.C., Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 636 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.831 (providing that “[n]either the payment of compensation or the accepting of the same by the employee or his dependents shall be considered as a determination of the rights of the parties under this act”).”
Dagenhardt v. Special Mach. & Eng'g, Inc, 345 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 1984). “” MCL 418.831; MSA 17.237(831). Thus, when viewed in context, it must be held, contrary to the implication of the Court of Appeals, that § 171 is not an election of remedies provision.”
Brown v. Eller Outdoor Advert. Co., 314 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “The decision of the administrative law judge, affirmed by the appeal board, was vacated by this Court be *541 cause it erroneously gave binding effect to a prior agreement of the parties without regard to the provisions of MCL 418.831; MSA 17.237(831). The case was remanded with…”
Fuchs v. Gen. Motors Corp., 325 N.W.2d 489 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “The WCAB reasons that the two-year-back rule must be read in conjunction with MCL 418.831; MSA 17.237(831), so it is barred from considering the period of time prior to two years preceding the filing of a petition, whether benefits were paid at an improper rate, or even if they…”
Lewis v. Drouillard, 788 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “§ 418.831 (“Neither the payment of compensation or the accepting of the same by the employees or his dependants shall be considered as a determination of the rights of the parties under this act.”
Adams v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 265 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “MCLA 418.831; MSA 17.237(831) states: "Neither the payment of compensation or the accepting *97 of the same by the employee or his dependents shall be considered as a determination of the rights of the parties under this act.”
Miller v. Dunn Paper Co., 209 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “5 See current provisions: MCLA 418.831; MSA 17.237(831); MCLA 418.841; MSA 17.”
Morley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 651 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, the WCAC noted that MCL 418.831 provides that the payment or acceptance of benefits does not constitute a determination of the parties’ rights under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (wdca), MCL 418.”
Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. v. Michigan Mut. Liab. Co., 235 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “Mere payment of benefits does not determine the rights of the parties, MCLA 418.831; MSA 17.237(831). Moreover, Kalamazoo, as Barden’s employer, might be liable for workmen’s compensation benefits along with Graff.”
Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Liab. Co., 235 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “Mere payment of benefits does not determine the rights of the parties, MCLA 418.831; MSA 17.237(831). Moreover, Kalamazoo, as Barden's employer, might be liable for workmen's compensation benefits along with Graff.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.