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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.836 (2026)

Approval of redemption agreement; findings; factors considered in making determination; employer as party.

✓ 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


418.836 Approval of redemption agreement; findings; factors considered in making determination; employer as party.

Sec. 836.

    (1) A redemption agreement shall only be approved by a worker's compensation magistrate if the worker's compensation magistrate finds all of the following:

    (a) That the redemption agreement serves the purpose of this act, is just and proper under the circumstances, and is in the best interests of the injured employee.

    (b) That the redemption agreement is voluntarily agreed to by all parties. If an employer does not object in writing or in person to the proposed redemption agreement, the employer shall be considered to have agreed to the proposed agreement.

    (c) That if an application has been filed pursuant to section 847 it alleges a compensable cause of action under this act.

    (d) That the injured employee is fully aware of his or her rights under this act and the consequences of a redemption agreement.

    (2) Parties may stipulate in writing to the determinations in subsection (1). If all parties stipulate in writing to those determinations, the stipulation may serve as a waiver of hearing, and the magistrate may approve the redemption agreement. A magistrate may conduct a hearing on a proposed stipulation.

    (3) In making a determination under subsection (1), factors to be considered by the worker's compensation magistrate shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

    (a) Any other benefits the injured employee is receiving or is entitled to receive and the effect a redemption agreement might have on those benefits.

    (b) The nature and extent of the injuries and disabilities of the employee.

    (c) The age and life expectancy of the injured employee.

    (d) Whether the injured employee has any health, disability, or related insurance.

    (e) The number of dependents of the injured employee.

    (f) The marital status of the injured employee.

    (g) Whether any other person may have any claim on the redemption proceeds.

    (h) The amount of the injured employee's average monthly expenses.

    (i) The intended use of the redemption proceeds by the injured employee.

    (4) The factors considered by the worker's compensation magistrate in making a determination under this section and the responses of the injured employee thereto shall be placed on the record.

    (5) An employer shall be considered a party for purposes under this section.

History: Add. 1981, Act 198, Eff. Jan. 1, 1984 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 151, Imd. Eff. July 18, 1983 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 271, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1994 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 266, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 2011

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 2 of Act 151 of 1983 provides: “This amendatory act shall apply to proposed redemption agreements filed after December 31, 1983.”

    For legislative intent as to severability, see Compiler's note to MCL 418.213.

    Enacting section 2 of Act 266 of 2011 provides:

    "Enacting section 2. This amendatory act applies to injuries incurred on or after its effective date."

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1984–1991 · leading case: Badon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 470 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Badon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 470 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The requirements for approval of redemption agreements contained in § 836 do not *442 apply to a redemption agreement approved in 1971.”
Gregory v. Transamerica Ins., 362 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “237(835), MCL 418.836; MSA 17.237(836). 3 There are many reasons why an employee may enter into a redemption agreement.”
Roberson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 801 F.2d 176 (6th Cir. 1986). “See Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 418.836 (West 1985).”
Divito v. Transamerica Corp. of Am., 366 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “237(835), MCL 418.836; MSA 17.237(836). 3 Finally, the Court in Gregory disagreed with the Thacker analysis on policy grounds.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 435 N.W.2d 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “237(835), MCL 418.836; MSA 17.237(836). The procedure for appeal from the order of the hearing referee is provided by § 837 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1969: The director may, or upon the request of any of the parties to the action shall, review the order of the hearing…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.836(1) — 1 case
Gregory v. Transamerica Ins., 362 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “237(835), MCL 418.836; MSA 17.237(836). 3 There are many reasons why an employee may enter into a redemption agreement.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.836(1)(a) — 1 case
Badon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 470 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “The requirements for approval of redemption agreements contained in § 836 do not *442 apply to a redemption agreement approved in 1971.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.836(l)(a) — 1 case
Badon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 470 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “The requirements for approval of redemption agreements contained in § 836 do not *442 apply to a redemption agreement approved in 1971.”
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.