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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.865 (2026)

Examination by physicians; fee.

✓ 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


418.865 Examination by physicians; fee.

Sec. 865.

    The bureau may appoint a duly qualified impartial physician to examine the injured employee and to report. The fee for this service shall be $5.00 and traveling expenses, but the bureau may allow additional reasonable amounts in extraordinary cases.

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

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2013 · leading case: Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 459 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 459 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 5× “The Court added: Also related to this subject matter is § 865 of the wdca, MCL 418.865; MSA 17.237(865), which authorizes the bureau to appoint an impartial physician to examine an injured employee.”
Clifton Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 731 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.865 . Brown I, 743 F.”
Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 743 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.865 . Thus, the WDCA does address the “fraudulent” denial of benefits and Michigan Courts have routinely held that such claims belong exclusively before the WDCB and the WCAC, with the ultimate availability of judicial review.”
Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 435 N.W.2d 474 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “Also related to this subject matter is § 865 of the wdca, MCL 418.865; MSA 17.237(865), which authorizes the bureau to appoint an impartial physician to examine an injured employee.”
Clifton Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. (6th Cir. 2013). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.865 . Brown I, 743 F.”
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.