Employer loses bid to stop payment of benefits

Where a stipulation between the employer and employee clearly establishes an ongoing obligation on the part of the employer to provide nursing care until there is a showing of a change in circumstances, the burden is on the employer to show such circumstances have changed.

Case name: Miller v. Bear Track Inn, 23 MIWCLR 129 (Mich. W.C.A.C. 2009).

Ruling: The Michigan Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission affirmed a decision denying the employer's request to stop paying benefits.

Lack of fixed work site makes car crash compensable (02/25/13)
Failure to tell doctor pain was work-related doesn't curb benefits (02/25/13)
Employer liable for medical care related to latent, progressive injury (02/25/13)
Claim timely filed within 2 years of fatal heart attack (11/01/12)
Late payments, denial of treatment entitle worker to attorney's fees (09/30/11)

What it means: Where a stipulation between the employer and employee clearly establishes an ongoing obligation on the part of the employer to provide nursing care until there is a showing of a change in circumstances, the burden is on the employer to show such circumstances have changed.

Summary: The commission upheld the denial of the employer's petition for termination of attendant care benefits. The employer argued that the benefits were unreasonable and unnecessary and therefore should be terminated. It also argued that, despite the stipulation, the employee retained the burden of proving she needed the attendant care, and that a stipulation did not alter the burden because it did not contain any language that provided the employers were to pay until further ordered. The stipulation established an ongoing obligation for the employer to provide nursing care at the rate of $38.70 per day until there was a showing of change in circumstances. The commission noted that the record established that the employee's condition over time grew worse and her need for attendant care had not decreased. The commission upheld the finding that the respective burdens of the employer and employee had not changed and the employer's request to deny benefits was denied.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP Forum^TM homepage.

September 25, 2009

Newsletter Sign-up