An unpublished opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Coleman v HDS Services, (docket #298468, 4/19/12) recently affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s affirmance of a magistrate’s award of benefits to Ms. Coleman (the plaintiff). The employer had sought a determination that plaintiff’s claim should be denied because her injury resulted from her intentional and willful misconduct. The intentional and willful misconduct provision of the statute can be found at MCL 418.305.

Plaintiff was employed as a hostess/supervisor at an assisted living facility. On April 17, 2007, during a conflict with another employee, plaintiff fell and was injured. There was evidence that plaintiff had been yelling and swearing before she was injured. Subsequently, the co-employee with whom she was having the conflict put his body up against plaintiff’s body and touched her forehead with the tip of his index finger. Plaintiff backed away and, as she did so, she fell backward over a cart, injuring herself.

At the trial level, the magistrate determined that evidence that plaintiff had been yelling and swearing before she was injured was not causally related to her injury. The magistrate explained: 

Even if I were to find that yelling and swearing were intentional and willful misconduct under the Act, I do not find that plaintiff’s injury occurred ‘by reason of’ her behavior, bur rather that it occurred by virtue of [the co-employee’s] actions in pressing against her. I find as fact that the [co-employee’s] actions were not causally related to any intentional or willful misconduct of plaintiff, but rather that they were volitional on his part.

The Appellate Commission held that the magistrate’s analysis was legally sound and supported by the magistrate’s factual findings. The Court of Appeals did not discern legal error in the analysis of the Appellate Commission.

The Court of Appeals held as follows:

Even if plaintiff yelled or swore earlier in the confrontation, that alleged conduct did not directly and predictably flow into her injuries for falling over a cart. The [Appellate Commission] and the magistrate recognized and applied the correct legal standard for analyzing misconduct under Daniel [v Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich 34, 40; 658 NW2d 144 (2003)] and Brackett [v Focus Hope, Inc., 482 Mich 269; 753 NW2d 207 (2008)], but determined that the requisite causal connection was not factually present. There was no legal error in the analysis.

In summary, the Court of Appeals seems to require that alleged misconduct must “directly and predictably flow into” the employee’s injuries in order for the intentional and willful misconduct to be a bar to receipt of wage loss benefits.

Please share this case analysis with others who may be interested in it.

This case analysis is provided for informational purposes only. Please contact us if you would like to discuss the intentional and willful misconduct provision within the context of specific facts.

04/20/12