¶1I dissent from the lead opinion’s determination that plaintiff is an “employee” within the meaning of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq. Instead of resolving this issue, I would first direct the parties to brief the jurisdictional issue that was raised in the amicus brief filed by the Workers’ Compensation Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan concerning whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of the WDCA.
473 Mich. 520
703 N.W.2d 1
Reed v. Yackell
Decided July 28, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 2005-07-28
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2017
4 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Applies MI 418 § 418.101
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2005-07-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →