Dorothy Comstock Riley

This case concerned a workers' compensation claim filed by plaintiff Black against her former employer, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, for benefits related to a nervous condition she attributed to her job. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board awarded benefits after finding that plaintiff's subsequent employment did not aggravate her condition and that the employer could not offset voluntary wage continuation payments made after her last day of work. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the award of compensation, concluding that the appeal board's factual findings were supported by record evidence and that the voluntary payments did not qualify as wages or compensation under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act for setoff purposes under MCL 418.811. A partial dissent argued that the setoff should have been allowed to avoid unintended double recovery.

labor & employment

In People v. Campbell, defendant Steven Paul Campbell was charged with open murder after he provided a gun to Kevin Basnaw, who was intoxicated and discussing suicide following an affair involving Campbell's wife; Basnaw then used the gun to kill himself. The circuit court denied Campbell's motion to quash the information, relying on the 1920 precedent in People v. Roberts, which had treated providing poison to a suicidal spouse as first-degree murder. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the conduct did not constitute murder under Michigan common law because suicide by definition excludes homicide, the Roberts decision no longer reflected current law, and no statute or consistent common-law authority classified incitement to or facilitation of suicide as murder. The court emphasized the absence of a reasonably ascertainable standard of guilt and noted that the Legislature, not the judiciary, should address such conduct. It remanded with instructions to quash the information and discharge the defendant.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted of four counts of delivering less than 50 grams of cocaine who raised an entrapment defense based on interactions with an undercover officer who allegedly induced him to obtain the drugs. The trial court denied the defense after an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the defendant could not claim entrapment while denying he delivered a controlled substance and that the officer's conduct was not so reprehensible as to warrant the defense under the objective test. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court failed to make the required findings of fact under court rules and precedent, which prevented proper review, and that the defendant was entitled to a full hearing on entrapment without admitting guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Kelly, the defendant was convicted in a bench trial in Detroit Recorder’s Court of misdemeanor assault and battery. On appeal, he argued that he was not advised of his right to a jury trial under the local court rule, that the rule violated equal protection and due process by requiring misdemeanor defendants in Detroit to request a jury trial in writing while defendants elsewhere received an automatic right, that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about prior incidents and prison discipline, and that the trial judge failed to make adequate findings of fact. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the absence of a transcript precluded review of the jury-trial advice claim, that the defendant had been afforded equivalent rights and the court system reorganization eliminated any ongoing disparity, that the cross-examination was either permissible or harmless, and that the judge’s findings sufficiently supported the verdict given the straightforward issues of who was the aggressor. The topics addressed are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a waitress sued her employer and supervisors for gender discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming the required uniform of high heels and short skirt caused harassment, that she was forced to quit in retaliation for a prior federal lawsuit, and that the supervisors intentionally inflicted emotional distress and interfered with her employment contract. The circuit court granted accelerated judgment to the defendants, dismissing the suit on the ground that the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act provided the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, reasoning that the exclusivity provision bars only claims for disabilities compensable under the compensation act, while damages for humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and career harm arising from discrimination are independent injuries not covered by the act and may be pursued in circuit court.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff was injured in a part-time job with the defendant while also holding a full-time job elsewhere; he was temporarily disabled from both but later returned to full-time work while remaining unable to resume part-time work due to the injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board modified the hearing referee's decision to allow the defendant credit against benefits for all wages the plaintiff earned in his full-time job. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under precedents such as Bowles v. James Lumber Co. and Lahay v. Hastings Lodge, wages from employment unaffected by the disability (or no longer affected after the plaintiff returned to full-time work) cannot be used to reduce benefits owed for the disability-related part-time employment. The court reasoned that the average weekly wage for benefit calculation must be based solely on the part-time job with the defendant, and credit is limited to any additional part-time wages from the defendant or replacement part-time work. The case was remanded for redetermination of benefits accordingly.

labor & employment