Coleman v HDS Services, 2009 ACO #32
The Commission found that the magistrate erred in her application of MCL 418.305 when she erroneously limited her analysis. The magistrate focused on whether the plaintiff’s behavior rose to the level of “moral turpitude,” rather than determining whether the plaintiff’s actions constituted “intentional and willful misconduct.” Despite the magistrate’s legal error in her analysis, the Commission found that she correctly determined that, whatever the conduct amounted to, the plaintiff was not “injured by reason” of the (mis)conduct. Key point: the plaintiff’s actions must amount to more than “badly behaved” and there must be a direct connection between the misconduct and the injury.
