BONNIE R LARSH, Applicant

BAY AREA MEDICAL CTR, Employer

THE CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY CO , Insurer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed October 12, 2006
larshbo . wsd : 175 : 8   ND § 3.5

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The applicant asserts in her petition for commission review the administrative law judge erred in determining the applicant does not qualify for benefits under the Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation Law pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 102.03(5)(c). The applicant asserts that Michigan law does not allow for the significant benefit of permanent partial disability otherwise awarded to injured workers in Wisconsin, and a liberal construction of the Wisconsin Act should allow a remedy for the applicant's claim. However, this is not a case such as in Horton v. Haddow, 186 Wis. 2d 174 (Ct. of App. 1994) where the issue was whether the employment contract was made in Wisconsin in order to establish Wisconsin jurisdiction. It is clear in this case the applicant accepted the work with the employer over the telephone while at her residence in Wisconsin, and therefore she met the prong of the test in Wis. Stat. § 102.03(5)(c), requiring an applicant to work under a contract made in the State of Wisconsin. In addition, the applicant's employment was principally located in Michigan under the facts stipulated in this case.

However, based on the stipulated facts, it appears the Michigan Worker's Compensation Law was applicable to the applicant's employer. The parties agreed the applicant had received worker's compensation benefits in the form of temporary total disability benefits and medical expense for her work-related injures while working for the employer in Michigan under the Michigan's Worker's Compensation Act. Under Wis. Stat. § 102.03(5)(c), if an applicant is working under a contract made in this state in employment principally located in another state, who's worker's compensation law is not applicable to that person's employer, the applicant is entitled to the benefits provided under Wisconsin law.

The commission agrees with the administrative law judge's comment that although it is unfortunate for the applicant the Michigan's Worker's Compensation Law does not provide for permanent disability as currently constituted under their state law, that does not establish the Michigan law was inapplicable to her employer, but only that the law which is applicable to her employer does not provide for the benefits that she seeks. The fact the Michigan law does not provide any permanent disability in the applicant's circumstances, does not establish the Michigan law was not applicable. Given the fact the applicant was paid the appropriate benefits under Michigan law by the employer's insurer, and given the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 102.03(5)(c), the applicant has failed to establish that she was eligible for permanent partial disability benefits under Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation Act. Therefore, the administrative law judge appropriately dismissed the applicant's claim with prejudice.

cc:
Attorney Thomas M. Domer
Ms. Jessie Nickel

[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2006/10/16