From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Yackell

Supreme Court of Michigan
Nov 17, 2003
469 Mich. 960 (Mich. 2003)

Summary

remanding to the trial court to make factual findings only with regard to these arguments, but not regarding whether the plaintiff was an employer under the WDCA

Summary of this case from Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc.

Opinion


671 N.W.2d 42 (Mich. 2003) 469 Mich. 960 Ricky REED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda Susan YACKELL, Defendant, and Buddy Lee Hadley, Gerald Michael Herskovitz and Mr. Food, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 123711. COA No. 236588. Supreme Court of Michigan November 17, 2003.

        On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Defendant's assertion of the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, M.C.L. § 418.131, arguably raises a challenge to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. See Harris v. Vernier, 242 Mich.App. 306, 312-316, 617 N.W.2d 764 (2000); MCR 2.111(F)(2).

        Accordingly, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the opinion of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of M.C.L. § 418.161(1)(l) and (n). Under § 161(1)(l), the court is to determine whether plaintiff was an employee in the service of defendants under any contract for hire, express or implied. See Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgt., Inc., 459 Mich. 561, 592 N.W.2d 360 (1999). Under § 161(1)(n), the court is to determine whether plaintiff maintained a separate business as a day-laborer and whether plaintiff held himself out to the public as a day-laborer. The Wayne Circuit Court shall, on the existing record or after such evidentiary hearing as the court deems appropriate, submit its findings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court within 35 days of the date of this order.

        In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED.

        We retain jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Reed v. Yackell

Supreme Court of Michigan
Nov 17, 2003
469 Mich. 960 (Mich. 2003)

remanding to the trial court to make factual findings only with regard to these arguments, but not regarding whether the plaintiff was an employer under the WDCA

Summary of this case from Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc.
Case details for

Reed v. Yackell

Case Details

Full title:Ricky REED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda Susan YACKELL, Defendant, and…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Nov 17, 2003

Citations

469 Mich. 960 (Mich. 2003)
469 Mich. 960

Citing Cases

Reed v. Yackell

5 Reed v Yackell, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 14, 2003, 2003 WL…

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc.

Reed was thus considered and decided in a manner fully consistent with Amerisure's interpretation of MCL…