In the fall of 2016, Mrs. Doe lost her husband to an industrial accident that occurred while he was on the job.  At the time, they both worked, but he was the main breadwinner, with his income more than doubling hers.

Shortly after his death, Mrs. Doe started receiving survivors’ benefits, as required by the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA).  Despite her husband’s average weekly wage of $945, Mrs. Doe only received $121 per week in survivors’ benefits.  Predictably, within a year, she was behind on most of her bills and the couple’s savings were almost entirely gone.

In Michigan, we have a statute and insurance system that were created, in part, to provide for the dependents of workers who are killed on the job.  So, how could this happen to Mrs. Doe?  The answer lies in poorly constructed statutory language and a lack of political will to amend it.

The relevant portion of WCDA reads:

If the employee leaves dependents only partially dependent upon his or her earnings for support at the time of the injury, the weekly compensation to be paid shall be equal to the same proportion of the weekly payment for the benefits of persons wholly dependent as 80% of the amount contributed by the employee to the partial dependents bears to the annual earnings of the deceased at the time of injury.

MCL 418.321.

Understanding this language requires a broader understanding of the statute itself and a grasp of the caselaw that has helped to define it.

For the “wholly dependent” survivors of a worker killed on the job, the survivors’ rate is 80% of the after-tax value of the decedent’s average weekly wage.  “Wholly dependent” survivors are minor children and immediate family members living in the same household who do not work (this includes spouses).  However, should a spouse or adult family member of that household be gainfully employed (and that means any employment, no matter how de minimus), he/she will be considered a “partial dependent.”  This invokes the convoluted language quoted above.

That language has been interpreted by our state supreme court in the case of Lesner v. Liquid Disposal, Inc., 466 Mich. 95 (2002).  The court applied the “plain meaning” of the statute.  It held that the rate is to be calculated by taking the decedent’s full rate, adjusting for statutory maximums and minimums, reducing that number by 20%, and then reducing it again to reflect the portion of the decedent’s annual income that was contributed to the support of the partial dependent.  The court acknowledge that this last step would be quite difficult to prove.  However, under the guise of plain language, it claimed its hands were tied.

This law and its often-vicious results have lived in relative obscurity for many years.  This is largely because it impacts so few people.  During most years, there are maybe 30 or 40 workplace deaths state-wide.  Of those, many decedents leave wholly dependent survivors or no survivors at all.  In those cases, the partial dependent survivor rate is not an issue.

However, for the handful of widows/widowers touched by it, this law is profoundly impactful, and it should be changed.

The experts at Bolhouse, Hofstee & McLean, P.C. know how to fight for injured workers and their families.  If you or a loved one have been impacted by these issues, contact us today for a free consultation.

Do you think you have a case? Click here to learn more.