Section 43
EXCLUDED EMPLOYMENT, Medical residency
CITE AS: Canto v McLaren Regional Medical Center, St Clair Circuit Court, No. 01-00382-AE (July 23, 2002)
Appeal pending: No*
Claimant: Emmanuel Canto, MD
Employer: McLaren Regional Medical Center
Docket No. L1999-00047-2736
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Participation in an accredited medical residency program is excluded from the MES Act definition of “employment” pursuant to Sections 43(o)(5) and 43(q)(2).
FACTS: Claimant completed employer’s 3-year family practice residency program. The residency program includes didactic work, classroom work, lectures and supervised clinical experience. The residency program was created to develop resident’s clinical skills and train physicians. Residents cannot bill for patient care; Medicare/Medicaid compensates the hospital separately. Residents’ stipends are reimbursed by federal sources. There was no relation between the number of hours worked and the amount claimant was paid. There is no expectation of employment after completion of the residency.
DECISION: The services claimant rendered are exempt from coverage under Sections 43(o)(5) and 43(q)(2).
RATIONALE: Section 43(o)(5) excludes from employment those individuals who are participants in a work-training program that is assisted or financed in whole or in part by a federal agency. Residency programs are “work-training” programs as they impart clinical skills to physicians, which allow them to properly perform their work. These programs are federally funded. Section 43(q)(2) excludes from the definition of employment, “services performed by a college student of any age, but only when the student’s employment is a formal and accredited part of the regular curriculum of the school.” In this matter, claimant was involved in a program that was part of an accredited program of instruction.
*Note an appeal in another case involving this same issue is currently pending at the Michigan Court of Appeals: Bureau of Worker’s Unemployment Compensation v Detroit Medical Center, Mich App Case No. 252777-D
11/04