Burning QuestionCivil SuitPoliticsWorkers Compensation

Workers Comp and Disability Ruling in Michigan Fire Case

The Michigan Supreme Court handed down a horrendously boring fire service case yesterday … so boring that I seriously debated (a) whether to blog about it and (b) how to blog about it without putting non-attorney readers to sleep…

However, the case seems to have garnered some national interest – and precisely because it is so boring – there is a risk that some commentators may misinterpret it – causing it appear to stand for more than it actually does.

With that introduction, let me try – as painlessly as possible – to walk you through the case of Smitter v. Thornapple Township using a few BURNING QUESTIONS!!!!

Burning Question 1: I am a part-time firefighter in Michigan. I am a full time employee of General Motors Corp. in Michigan. I make 90% of my income working for GM. If I get hurt firefighting, will I be entitled to workers compensation benefits based only on my fire department wages?

Answer: No, you will receive 80% of your regular weekly compensation from both jobs combined. You will receive this compensation from the fire department’s workers comp carrier even though only 10% of your income comes from the fire department. You probably don’t care what happens after you get your check – but the fire department comp carrier can seek reimbursement for having paid you 80% of your GM wages through a special comp fund known as the Second Injury Fund. There is a whole body of case law and statutes that govern how the Second Injury Fund operates and what each carrier has to pay.

Burning Question 2: Well that is a relief. I was afraid I would only get a percentage of my fire department income and i would be in serious financial trouble. My fire department also provides us with disability insurance coverage in addition to workers compensation… you know, like the kind of insurance in the commercials with the stupid duck… I really like this benefit because it protects me for the other 20% that comp does not cover, plus it will provide enough extra cash to cover the overtime I would lose. I have become kind of accustomed to working a lot of overtime and would definitely need the extra cash to pay my bills in the event I was injured. Any issues with disability insurance?

Answer: That is where things start to go sideways. Michigan law requires that workers comp and disability insurance that are paid for by an employer – be “coordinated” in such a way that you are only entitled to receive 80% of your normal weekly wages. If you receive disability payments your employer is supposed to reduce your comp payments so the total does not exceed 80%. It is called “coordination of benefits”.

Burning Question 3: Are you f%$#ing kidding me?

Answer: No.

Burning Question 4: Does my employer have to follow the coordination of benefits rule? They never have done that in the past. They always have given guys who get hurt both comp and disability pay.

Answer: Apparently not. There was a case that the Michigan Supreme Court just handed down, Smitter v. Thornapple Township. The facts are amazingly similar to your case. The court seemed to imply that employers can choose to voluntarily give injured employees workers comp plus the disability payments. In addition some departments can formally opt out of the coordination of benefits requirement all together. Unfortunately in the Smitter case the fire department did not opt out of the coordination of benefits so it was supposed to coordinate benefits.

Burning Question 5:  Well… what ever. That’s confusing. So everything is cool then, right. I mean so long as my fire department continues to pay me both comp and disability, what do I care that the department didn’t coordinate benefits?

Answer: Yeah… well, it seems in the Smitter case the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that if the fire department does not coordinate benefits, the fire department’s insurer cannot recoup the payments made to an injured firefighter from the Second Injury Fund to the extent the payments violated the coordination of benefit requirement. The insurer is only entitled to get reimbursed for the amount it would be entitled to if the fire department had actually coordinated benefits. That being the case I tend to think your department may no longer be willing/able to provide disability insurance coverage for you going forward. The comp insurers will probably be getting a lot stricter about this. So most likely fire departments will not be able to offer both comp and disability as they have in the past.

Burning Question 6: Are you f%$#ing kidding me?

Answer: No.

Burning Question 7: Well that’s just great. So what are my options? I mean, I really need the disability coverage and that was an important factor in my decision to work part-time for the fire department?

Answer: I’d start talking to the duck and buy my own coverage directly from him. Maybe your fire department might be willing to offer you a stipend or pay increase to offset that cost, seeing as how they will no longer be paying the disability insurance premiums.

Burning Question 8: I am a fire chief in Michigan. A bunch of my guys just walked into my office and said you told them we ought to give them a stipend or pay increase so they could buy their own disability coverage. Are you f%$#ing kidding me?

Here is a copy of the ruling. Smitter v Thornapple

Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 50 years of fire service experience and 40 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. Besides his law degree, he has a MS in Forensic Psychology. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.

Related Articles

5 Comments

  1. Burning Question 9: Why is the f%$#ing court system doing it's very damned best to give folks yet another reason not to volunteer? Aside from the fact that all the f%$#ingjudges live in f%$#ing cities served by career departments?!?

    But to second what Jim said, thank you for translating the legalese into English.

  2. Andrew

    You will be happy to know that the Michigan Supreme Court anticipated your concern and like my sons when I ask them to take out the garbage shifted the blame to the legislature…

    Perhaps happy is not the right word…. but I doubt you will be surprised…

    And no my sons do not blame the legislature for the garbage problem… but they certainly do try to shift responsibility for necessary chores that we all need to pitch in to do from time to time…

  3. Question of curiosity: Does the answer to Question 1 (that the part time job's WC program must pay 80% of the combined income from both the employee's jobs) apply only in Michigan?

    As the chief of a department in CT a few years ago, we had a part timer get hurt badly on the job and he our WC carrier did not cover the wages from his primary job. We fought hard for the guy from within the department, but he just seemed to be getting screwed by it. Following his ordeal, we lost most of our PT employees (and who can blame them??). 

  4. Kevin

    Each state is different. Most states limit workers comp to 66 2/3rds of regular compensation, but Michgan is 80%. Most will also include all compensation including secondary employment.

    One rather unique issue for us is that in many states firefighters are exempt from workers comp or have their own comp system… probably a function of the high injury rates we have.

    In RI, firefighters are exempt from comp, but are entitled to recieve 100% of their salaries for the duration of their injuries. As a result there is no provision for secondary employment. I am not sure about CT.

Back to top button