You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Neuhaus v. PEPSI COLA METROPOLITAN BOTTLING COMPANY

Citations: 742 N.W.2d 353; 480 Mich. 1000Docket: 134661

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; December 26, 2007; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on December 27, 2007, regarding the case of David P. Neuhaus against Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The Court considered the application for leave to appeal a July 3, 2007, order from the Court of Appeals. Instead of granting leave, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to specifically evaluate whether the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) properly awarded attorney fees related to the plaintiff's medical benefits award. The Court of Appeals is instructed to determine if the WCAC accurately interpreted the term "prorate" as defined in MCL 418.315(1). The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on all other issues presented, indicating that they were not persuaded those matters warranted further review, and did not retain jurisdiction over the case. The order was certified by the Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, Corbin R. Davis.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Leave to Appeal on Other Issues

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal on other issues, deciding that these did not merit further review.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on all other issues presented, indicating that they were not persuaded those matters warranted further review, and did not retain jurisdiction over the case.

Interpretation of 'Prorate' under MCL 418.315(1)

Application: The Court of Appeals was instructed to ascertain whether the term 'prorate', as used in MCL 418.315(1), was accurately interpreted by the WCAC in their decision.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeals is instructed to determine if the WCAC accurately interpreted the term 'prorate' as defined in MCL 418.315(1).

Remand for Evaluation of Attorney Fees

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to evaluate whether the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission properly awarded attorney fees connected to the plaintiff's medical benefits award.

Reasoning: Instead of granting leave, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to specifically evaluate whether the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) properly awarded attorney fees related to the plaintiff's medical benefits award.