WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969
Act 317 of 1969
418.841 Disputes or controversies concerning compensation or other benefits; submission to bureau; determination of questions arising under act; director as interested party; referral of claims to small claims division; notice; filing request for removal; hearing; representation; rules of evidence; record; claim exceeding $2,000.00; finality of decision; request for hearing under MCL 418.847.
Sec. 841.
(1) Any dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's compensation magistrate, as applicable. The director may be an interested party in all worker's compensation cases in questions of law.
(2) Any claim for which an application under section 847 is filed after March 31, 1986 shall be referred to a small claims division of the bureau if the claimant requests in writing that it be referred and the claim is any of the following:
(a) For $2,000.00 or less, concerns a definite period of time, and the employee has returned to work.
(b) For $2,000.00 or less and is for medical benefits only.
(c) For $2,000.00 or less, as determined by the bureau, with regard to any dispute or controversy.
(3) Upon a claim being referred to the small claims division, the bureau shall notify the carrier and any other opposing parties of that referral. A party opposing the claim, within 30 days of the notification being sent, may file with the bureau a request in writing that the claim be removed from the small claims division and be set for hearing under section 847. Upon receipt of the written request, the claim shall be removed from the small claims division and shall be set for hearing.
(4) A worker's compensation magistrate shall hear a matter referred to the small claims division.
(5) The parties to a matter heard in the small claims division may represent themselves or be represented by an authorized agent but shall not be represented by an attorney. If a party is represented by an attorney, the matter shall be removed from the small claims division and shall be set for a hearing under section 847.
(6) The rules of evidence as applied in a nonjury civil case in circuit court shall be followed as far as practicable, but a magistrate may admit and give probative effect to evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. Depositions shall not be allowed to be used as evidence. Medical reports may be used as evidence.
(7) A record of a hearing shall not be made in the small claims division.
(8) If it is determined by the magistrate, or the parties before a decision is rendered, that the claim exceeds $2,000.00, the matter shall be removed from the small claims division and shall be set for a hearing under section 847 unless the parties agree in writing that the matter shall be heard in the small claims division.
(9) A worker's compensation magistrate's decision as to any dispute or controversy in a matter heard in the small claims division shall be final and nonappealable in the absence of fraud as provided in section 28 of article VI of the state constitution of 1963.
(10) The parties to a matter decided under subsections (2) to (9) may request a hearing under section 847 with respect to any other dispute or controversy for which there has not been a worker's compensation magistrate's decision in the small claims division.
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
Compiler's Notes:
For legislative intent as to severability, see Compiler's note to MCL 418.213.
PopularName Notes:
Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
59
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case:
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005).
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005).
· cites it 20× “On the contrary, as noted earlier, in MCL 418.841, the Legislature directed that "[a] ny dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's…”
Harris v. Vernier, 617 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “[3] MCL 418.841(1); MSA 17.237(841)(1) provides: Any dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's compensation magistrate, as applicable.”
Sewell v. Clearing Mach. Corp., 347 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 1984).
· cites it 8× “*59 Armco relied on MCL 418.841; MSA 17.237(841), which reads: "Any controversy concerning compensation shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau.”
Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 675 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.841 (1) ("Any dispute or controversy concerning compensation .”
McAvoy v. H B Sherman Co., 258 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 418.841; MSA 17.237(841). When notice of a dispute is filed, the director "shall set the case for hearing and shall designate a hearing referee to hear the case".”
Begin v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 773 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “[2] Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he needs attendant care 16 hours a day for most days and 24 hours a day for 48 days a year, or a minimum of 112 hours a week for attendant care. The workers' compensation act, MCL 418.”
Riley v. Northland Geriatric Ctr., 433 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “[3] Even if an intervening judicial decision may not technically be "evidence" under § 859, there is no reason to draw a distinction between such a decision and other types of evidence, particularly in light of the informal nature of workers' compensation proceedings. Moreover,…”
Szydlowski v. Gen. Motors Corp., 245 N.W.2d 26 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “" MCLA 418.841; MSA 17.237(841) provides that "all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau".”
Pike v. City of Wyoming, 433 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “" MCL 418.841(1); MSA 17.237(841)(1). While admittedly constitutional questions "are beyond the purview of the WCAB," Williams v Hofley Mfg Co, 430 Mich 603, 624, n 27 ; 424 NW2d 278 (1988), they are not beyond the purview of the Court of Appeals or this Court.”
Dunbar v. Dep't of Mental Health, 495 N.W.2d 152 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Inasmuch as the jurisdictional provisions provide the bureau with the authority to hear any disputes concerning compensation, it is significant that this Court has excluded the pure retaliatory discharge claim from this jurisdictional provision.”
Bailey v. Oakwood Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 698 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 2005).
· cites it 2× “*379 On the basis of the Robinson decision and the mandatory language of the statute, the WCAC terminated plaintiff's benefits. Bailey v. Oakwood Hosp.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.841(1) — 19 cases
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005).
“On the contrary, as noted earlier, in MCL 418.841, the Legislature directed that "[a] ny dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's…”
Harris v. Vernier, 617 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“[3] MCL 418.841(1); MSA 17.237(841)(1) provides: Any dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's compensation magistrate, as applicable.”
Begin v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 773 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“[2] Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he needs attendant care 16 hours a day for most days and 24 hours a day for 48 days a year, or a minimum of 112 hours a week for attendant care. The workers' compensation act, MCL 418.”
Pike v. City of Wyoming, 433 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. 1988).
“" MCL 418.841(1); MSA 17.237(841)(1). While admittedly constitutional questions "are beyond the purview of the WCAB," Williams v Hofley Mfg Co, 430 Mich 603, 624, n 27 ; 424 NW2d 278 (1988), they are not beyond the purview of the Court of Appeals or this Court.”
Bailey v. Oakwood Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 698 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 2005).
“*379 On the basis of the Robinson decision and the mandatory language of the statute, the WCAC terminated plaintiff's benefits. Bailey v. Oakwood Hosp.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.841(6) — 4 cases
Riley v. Northland Geriatric Ctr., 433 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. 1988).
“[3] Even if an intervening judicial decision may not technically be "evidence" under § 859, there is no reason to draw a distinction between such a decision and other types of evidence, particularly in light of the informal nature of workers' compensation proceedings. Moreover,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.841(9) — 1 case
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.