Netmed Transcription Services v Clark Digest No. 17.24 Section 421.42(1) and (5); 421.44(1) Cite as: Netmed Transcription Services v Clark, unpublished opinion of the Wexford County Circuit Court, issued June 2, 2009 (Docket No. 09-21560-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Theresa Clark Employer: Netmed Transcription Services Date of decision: June 2, 2009 View/download the full decision… Read More »
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& Storage v. Downey Digest No. 17.27 Section 421.42 Cite as: Wolverine Transportation & Storage, Inc v Downey, unpublished opinion of the Macomb County Circuit Court, issued March 23, 2007 (Case No. 2006-4021-AE).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 »
Psychological Services v MESC Digest no. 17.14 Sections 42, 44 Cite as: Psychological Services v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued May 4, 1990 (Docket No. 89-64789-AE).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 »
Socher v Allegan General Hospital Digest no. 17.01 Section 42 Cite as: Socher v Allegan Gen Hosp, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued December 29, 1983 (Docket No. B81 07346 80683); lv den 422 Mich 882 (1985).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 »
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.
Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co Digest no. 17.08 Section 42 Cite as: Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued April 21, 1980 (No. 79-13578 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: David Wiggers Employer: Olsen Seawall Construction Co. Docket no.: L77 6884 1537 Date of decision: April 21, 1980 View/download the full decision… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a nurse-anesthetist declines employee status, signs a contract to provide services at a hospital as an independent contractor, and retains the right to perform services elsewhere, the doctrine of “economic reality” does not apply, and the claimant is an independent contractor.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a truck owner-operator works almost exclusively for one company the claimant is an employee, even where the claimant considered himself or herself an independent contractor.
The test of whether a person or business is liable for workers’ compensation benefits as the employer of a claimant is not a matter of terminology, oral or written, but of the realities of the work performed; control of the claimant is a factor, as is payment of wages, hiring and firing, and the responsibility for the maintenance of discipline, but the test of economic reality views these elements as a whole, assigning primacy to no single one.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The test to determine whether an employee-employer relationship exists for purposes of the Worker’s Compensation Act is the “economic reality test”, and the factors used to apply the test are whether: (1) the employer will incur liability if the relationship terminates at will; (2) the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; (3) the employee primarily depends upon the wages for living expenses; (4) the employee furnishes equipment and material; (5) the employee holds himself out to the public as able to perform certain tasks; (6) the work involved is customarily performed by an independent contractor. Along with (7) the factors of control, payment of wages, maintenance of discipline, and the right to engage or discharge employees; and (8) weighing those factors which will most favorably effectuate the purposes of the Act.