In an unpublished Opinion, Coleman v Michigan Paving & Materials Co (Docket #294737, 12/14/10), the Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that plaintiff-employee was not entitled to year-round benefits because any wage loss in the seasonal layoff months was not causally linked to his disability. Plaintiff began working for the defendant-employer in 1993, performing various road construction operations. The work was seasonal, generally lasting from mid-April to mid-November each year. Plaintiff did not work during the seasonal layoff periods or “off seasons”. Plaintiff injured his back at work in July of 2000. He was off work for three weeks. When he returned, plaintiff was unable to perform the full range of his duties. He was limited to driving the rollers. Plaintiff worked another six years for the defendant. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment on November 18, 2006, citing economic reasons. Following trial of plaintiff’s workers’ compensation case, the magistrate awarded plaintiff year-round wage loss benefits for his back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission affirmed the award. Defendant argued that plaintiff was not entitled to year-round benefits because any wage loss in the seasonal layoff months was not causally linked to his disability. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed that portion of the prior decisions, awarding year-round benefits. The Court of Appeals relied upon a previous, published, decision of the Court of Appeals, Romero v Burt Moeke Hardwoods, Inc, 280 Mich App 1, 8-9; 760 NW2d 586 (2008). The Court of Appeals acknowledged that plaintiff’s status as a seasonal employee did not disentitle him from benefits during the seasonal layoff months. However, it also noted that plaintiff still must show that he suffered wage loss that was causally linked to his work related injury. In finding that plaintiff failed to show that he suffered wage loss during the customary layoff months that was causally linked to his work related injury, the Court held that there was no record evidence to suggest that plaintiff’s wage loss in the “off season” was attributable to any factor other than the seasonal layoff. Regardless of his injury, plaintiff would not have been working for defendant in the months when defendant did not perform road construction operations. Plaintiff offered no evidence that he would have been working elsewhere during that time. Plaintiff had a history of not working during the seasonal layoff months. The Court held that, because plaintiff offered no evidence of a causal link between his work-related injury and wage loss in the seasonal layoff months as required by Romero, defendant-employer was entitled to a reduction in its liability for wage loss benefits during that period. 01/03/11