WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969
Act 317 of 1969
418.931 Dispute or controversy as to payment of compensation; notice to and claim upon employer; hearing; joinder of fund; notice to fund; objection; evidence; appearances; order.
Sec. 931.
(1) If an employee was employed under the provisions of this chapter and a dispute or controversy arises as to payment of compensation or the liability therefor, the employee shall give notice to, and make claim upon, the employer as provided in chapters 3 and 4 and apply for a hearing. On motion made in writing by the employer, the director, or the worker's compensation magistrate to whom the case is assigned, shall join the fund as a party defendant.
(2) The bureau within 5 days of the entry of an order joining the fund as a party defendant shall give the fund written notice thereof by first-class mail which notice shall be mailed not less than 30 days before the date of hearing and shall include the name of the employee and employer and the date of the alleged personal injury or disability.
(3) The fund, named as a defendant pursuant to motion, shall have 10 days after the date of mailing of notice of joinder to file objection to being named a party defendant. On the date of the hearing at which the liability of the parties is determined, the worker's compensation magistrate first shall hear arguments and take evidence concerning the joinder as party defendant. If the fund has filed a timely objection, and if the argument and evidence warrant, the worker's compensation magistrate shall grant a motion to dismiss.
(4) At the time of the hearing, the employer and the fund may appear, cross-examine witnesses, give evidence, and defend both on the issue of liability of the employer to the employee and on the issue of the liability of the fund.
(5) The worker's compensation magistrate shall enter an order determining the respective liability of the employer and the fund.
History: Add. 1971, Act 183, Eff. July 1, 1972 ;-- 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
Valencic v. Tpm, Inc, 639 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “According to the wcac, MCL 418.931 specifically covers situations, such as the instant case, where there is a dispute or controversy regarding the payment of compensation, whereas MCL 418.”
Bennett v. Mackinac Bridge Auth., 808 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 418.931(1). Likewise, another section of the WDCA formerly provided that when an employee disabled by an occupational disease filed a claim for benefits against his or her “last employer,” the last employer could compel the joinder of the disabled employee’s prior employers…”
Brown v. Michigan Health Care Corp., 617 N.W.2d 301 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Mhcc brought the Second Injury Fund into the litigation under MCL 418.931; MSA 17.237(931). Following a hearing, the magistrate concluded that the plaintiff was disabled by her April 1992 injury.”
Robinson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 619 N.W.2d 411 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“2 Another basis of the wcac’s decision was that gm failed to comply with MCL 418.931(1); MSA 17.237(931)(1). Again, since this Court’s order was limited to the notice question, this is not an issue in this appeal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.931(1) — 4 cases
Bennett v. Mackinac Bridge Auth., 808 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 418.931(1). Likewise, another section of the WDCA formerly provided that when an employee disabled by an occupational disease filed a claim for benefits against his or her “last employer,” the last employer could compel the joinder of the disabled employee’s prior employers…”
Valencic v. Tpm, Inc, 639 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“According to the wcac, MCL 418.931 specifically covers situations, such as the instant case, where there is a dispute or controversy regarding the payment of compensation, whereas MCL 418.”
Robinson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 619 N.W.2d 411 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“2 Another basis of the wcac’s decision was that gm failed to comply with MCL 418.931(1); MSA 17.237(931)(1). Again, since this Court’s order was limited to the notice question, this is not an issue in this appeal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.931(5) — 1 case
Brown v. Michigan Health Care Corp., 617 N.W.2d 301 (Mich. 2000).
“Mhcc brought the Second Injury Fund into the litigation under MCL 418.931; MSA 17.237(931). Following a hearing, the magistrate concluded that the plaintiff was disabled by her April 1992 injury.”
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.