Wolverine Transportation & Storage v. Downey Digest No. 17.27 Section 421.42 Cite as: Wolverine Transportation & Storage, Inc v Downey, unpublished opinion of the Macomb County Circuit Court, issued March 23, 2007 (Case No. 2006-4021-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Edward Downey Employer: Wolverine Transportation and Storage, Inc. Date of decision: March 23, 2007 View/download the… Read More »
Larry Coppens, d/b/a Strawberry Tree & Landscaping v. Matthew L. Hayes Digest No. 17.22 Section 421.41; Section 421.42 Cite as: Coppens v Hayes, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued October 12, 2005, (Docket No. 05-064176-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Matthew L. Hayes Employer: Larry Coppens, d/b/a Strawberry Tree & Landscaping Date of… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Even though the primary function of the medical residency was to provide additional training, the claimant functioned as an employee. Furthermore, his services were not statutorily excluded.
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimants resigned from non-tenured policymaking/advisory positions to which they were elected and were then hired or appointed to tenured, non-policymaking, non-advisory positions, their services were not excluded even if they essentially continued the same type of work as before.
Psychological Services v MESC Digest no. 17.14 Sections 42, 44 Cite as: Psychological Services v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued May 4, 1990 (Docket No. 89-64789-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Psychological Services Docket no.: L87-07843-RO1-1978 Date of decision: May 4, 1990 View/download the full decision CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where several licensed… Read More »
Mr C’s Barber Shop v. Freiheit Digest No. 17.26 Section 421.42(1) and (5) Cite as: Mr. C’s Barber Shop v Freiheit, unpublished opinion of the Genesee County Circuit Court, issued June 17, 1985 (Docket No. 84-700-AV). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Karen Freiheit Employer: Mr. C’s Barber Shop Date of decision: June 17, 1985 View/download the… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Whether a business is an employer of a worker for purposes of the MES Act depends upon the economic reality of their relationship; under the economic reality test, among the factors to be used are (1) control of the worker’s duties, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the right to hire and fire and the right to discipline, and (4) the performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer’s business towards the accomplishment of a common goal.
Socher v Allegan General Hospital Digest no. 17.01 Section 42 Cite as: Socher v Allegan Gen Hosp, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued December 29, 1983 (Docket No. B81 07346 80683); lv den 422 Mich 882 (1985). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Robert Socher Employer: Allegan General Hospital Docket no.: B81 07346 80683 Date of… Read More »
BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: The test of employment is one of “economic reality” and not “control and direction” exclusively.
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: When salespeople had no set hours, sales quotas or specific territory to cover, and are paid only on a commission and bonus basis, the salespeople are not under the “control or direction” of the employer and, hence, are not employees.