Link v Thomas Electric, LLC, 2007 ACO #32
The Plaintiff, Benjamin Link, alleged a Chapter 3, last day of work personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Defendant. The Magistrate held that the Plaintiff’s work for the Defendant caused a significant aggravation of his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

Testimony at the time of trial established that the Plaintiff had returned to work on two occasions. He had delivered newspapers and he had performed painting and light maintenance. He had earned approximately $8.00 per hour at each job. As a result, the magistrate gave the Defendant credit in the amount of 8.00 per hour.

The Plaintiff appealed and argued that the magistrate’s opinion that allowed for a reduction in the Plaintiff’s weekly benefits, when the Plaintiff had no actual earnings, must be modified to provide that benefits can only be reduced when the Plaintiff is in receipt of actual earnings.

The WCAC concluded that the Magistrate’s order did not contemplate a reduction of wage loss benefits unless there were actual earnings to base the reduction, and advised that it is the order that counts, rather than the opinion. In so finding, the WCAC held that the Plaintiff was entitled to wage loss benefits reduced by actual earnings only.

The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the WCAC that the magistrate’s order did not provide for an offset to the Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation benefits, except in the case of actual earnings. The Court of Appeals indicated that the magistrate in his opinion clearly gave the employer credit for the Plaintiff’s ability to earn $8.00 an hour, 25 hours per week, and the WCAC clearly erred in ruling that the magistrate’s order did not grant such credit. As such, this case was remanded.

The Supreme Court of Michigan reversed the ruling of the WCAC that the magistrate’s order did not provide for an offset to the Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation benefits except in the case of actual earnings. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate’s order incorporated by reference all of the rulings attached in his opinion, which gave the employer credit for the Plaintiff’s ability to earn. This matter was remanded for consideration of the Plaintiff’s cross-appeal.