Lofton v. AutoZone, Inc., 482 Mich 1005, 756 N.W.2d 85 (2008), Supreme Court Docket No. 136029
In the case of Lofton, the Supreme Court issued an order on October 1, 2008 that specifically stated that even if the Plaintiff is found disabled consistent with MCL 418.301(4), and the disability is only partial, the magistrate must compute wage loss benefits under MCL 418.361(1) based upon what the Plaintiff remained capable of earning. In other words, the Supreme Court specifically directed the magistrate to require the Plaintiff to prove a wage loss. If actual jobs do exist, then any partial disability must be reduced based upon the actual jobs that are available in the ordinary marketplace, that the Plaintiff remains able to perform.

It is important to note that if jobs are available in the ordinary marketplace within the employee’s qualifications and training, the concept of wage loss requires a causal connection between any work-related injury and wage loss. Thus, to the extent that an injured employee’s wage loss is not caused directly by the work-related injury, but due to some other non-work related issues, then benefits should be reduced accordingly.

The Supreme Court’s order in Lofton stands for the proposition that the Plaintiff needs to prove not only the ability to perform all jobs within the ordinary marketplace that pay at or above his maximum earning capacity (necessary to establish a disability), but all jobs (even those that pay less than maximum earning capacity), in order to meet the wage loss requirement contained in the Act.

The Supreme Court remanded Lofton to the Magistrate to make a determination as to whether the Plaintiff is disabled under Stokes, and if so, whether Plaintiff’s disability is partial under MCL 418.361(1), who found the Plaintiff partially disabled. The Supreme Court had retained jurisdiction upon remand to the Magistrate, and the matter is before the Court once again.