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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.837 (2026)

Approval or rejection of redemption agreements and lump sum applications; review; order; appeal; finality.

✓ 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


418.837 Approval or rejection of redemption agreements and lump sum applications; review; order; appeal; finality.

Sec. 837.

    (1) All redemption agreements and lump sum applications filed under the provisions of section 835 shall be approved or rejected by a worker's compensation magistrate.

    (2) The director may, or upon the request of any of the parties to the action shall, review the order of the worker's compensation magistrate entered under subsection (1). In the event of review by the director and in accordance with such rules as the director may prescribe and after hearing, the director shall enter an order as the director considers just and proper. Any order of the director under this subsection may be appealed to the appellate commission within 15 days after the order is mailed to the parties.

    (3) Unless review is ordered or requested within 15 days after the date the order of the worker's compensation magistrate is mailed, or distributed electronically, to the parties, the order shall be final.

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

    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 12 cases, 1970–2015 · 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× “] Section 837 of the act, MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837), provides for the processing and review of redemption agreements and, at the time of the redemption agreement, provided: (1) The director shall direct the processing for approval or rejection by the hearing referees of all…”
Solo v. Chrysler Corp., 255 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “237(835), and once approved, the order of the referee became final since no review was ordered or requested within 15 days, MCLA 418.837; MSA 17.237(837). On November 1, 1971, plaintiff filed a claim for benefits in the workmen's compensation bureau presumably after discovering…”
Johnson v. Harper-Grace Hosp., 284 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Neither the parties nor the director of the bureau requested a review of the redemption order, and it became a final order 15 days after approval, pursuant to MCL 418.837(2); MSA 17.237(837X2). On December 7, 1976, plaintiff filed the instant complaint in circuit court.”
Walker v. U S Equip. Co., 290 N.W.2d 36 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Relying on MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837), 1 the *457 director of the Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation held that because no appeal was taken within 15 days from the date the redemption order had been mailed to the parties, the bureau had no jurisdiction to hear defendants’ claim.”
Roberts v. Marquette Gen. Hosp., 338 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Must the Director of the Bureau of Workers’ Disability Compensation file a written order within 15 days of the date the order of the hearing referee approving a redemption agreement is mailed to the parties to exercise his right to review the redemption agreement, pursuant to…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 435 N.W.2d 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Although MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837) was amended subsequent to the event salient to this appeal, see 1985 PA 103 , the resultant statutory revisions would not alter our legal analysis of the issue presented here.”
Prater v. Game Time, Inc., 351 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837) provides for review of a referee’s decision affirming or rejecting a redemption agreement.”
Cuthbertson v. Shoney's Inc., 620 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2001). “MCL 418.837(2); MSA 17.237(837)(2) states: "The director may, or upon the request of any of the parties to the action shall, review the order of the worker's compensation magistrate [approving or rejecting a redemption agreement] entered under subsection (1).”
Harrington v. BROWN Bros., 295 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. 1980). “237(835) and MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837). We will hereinafter refer to these statutes as §§ 835 and 837 respectively.”
Jacobs v. Technidisc, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “This subsection allows the settlement of workers' compensation claims, but it does not specify where the settlement may occur.”
Dennis Tautkus v. Stuart M Saunders (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “DISCOVERY Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in determining that plaintiffs were or should have been aware of the existence of a claim for malpractice at least by the time Tautkus filed his administrative petition.”
Nelson v. Jensen, 182 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “The second, MCLA 1970 Cum Supp § 418.837 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 17.237 [837]), the specific statute governing the processing of redemptions provides: “(2) The director * * * upon request of any of the parties to the action shall, review'the order of the hearing referee * * * .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.837(2) — 6 cases
Badon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 470 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “] Section 837 of the act, MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837), provides for the processing and review of redemption agreements and, at the time of the redemption agreement, provided: (1) The director shall direct the processing for approval or rejection by the hearing referees of all…”
Johnson v. Harper-Grace Hosp., 284 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Neither the parties nor the director of the bureau requested a review of the redemption order, and it became a final order 15 days after approval, pursuant to MCL 418.837(2); MSA 17.237(837X2). On December 7, 1976, plaintiff filed the instant complaint in circuit court.”
Roberts v. Marquette Gen. Hosp., 338 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Must the Director of the Bureau of Workers’ Disability Compensation file a written order within 15 days of the date the order of the hearing referee approving a redemption agreement is mailed to the parties to exercise his right to review the redemption agreement, pursuant to…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 435 N.W.2d 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Although MCL 418.837; MSA 17.237(837) was amended subsequent to the event salient to this appeal, see 1985 PA 103 , the resultant statutory revisions would not alter our legal analysis of the issue presented here.”
Cuthbertson v. Shoney's Inc., 620 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2001). “MCL 418.837(2); MSA 17.237(837)(2) states: "The director may, or upon the request of any of the parties to the action shall, review the order of the worker's compensation magistrate [approving or rejecting a redemption agreement] entered under subsection (1).”
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.