Chapter 20 MISCELLANEOUS
Chapter 20 contains cases which do not fit comfortably into the categories addressed in the other chapters. Some of these are unemployment compensation cases which address issues and sections of the MES Act other than those specified for Chapters 1-18 or the federal issues in Chapter 19.
In addition, this chapter also contains cases which did not arise under the MES Act at all, but have had an impact on Unemployment Insurance (U.I.) decisions or reflect broad principles of law which are applicable in a variety of legal situations. Again, the reader is encouraged to consult the Subject Word Index.
WORKER'S COMPENSATION, Eligibility, Ability
CITE AS: Henry v Ford Motor Co., 291 Mich 535 (1939).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Lee Henry
Employer: Ford Motor Co
Docket No: NA
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: A finding of disability for purposes of worker's compensation does not necessarily mean a claimant is disabled and ineligible for U.I. under Section 28(1)(c).
FACTS: Claimant suffered a work related injury. He filed for and received worker's compensation. After some time he returned but could only perform favored work because of a restriction associated with the injury. Ultimately he was laid off and filed for unemployment benefits.
The employer contested the claimant's eligibility. It asserted that because the claimant had been found disabled by the worker's compensation board he couldn't be fully able and available and had to be found ineligible pursuant to Section 28(1)(c) of the Employment Security Act.
DECISION: A finding that an employee is totally disabled so far as returning to pre-injury work is not necessarily inconsistent with a finding that he is able to, and is available for, work within his restrictions.
RATIONALE: An employee permanently disabled to continue the work that he was engaged in when the accident occurred may nevertheless be able to do some light work of a different nature than that in which he was previously engaged.