RONALD G SWEATT V DEPT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RONALD G. SWEATT,
FOR PUBLICATION
September 25, 2001
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 226194
WCAC
LC No. 99-000026
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
December 7, 2001
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
The rationale of defendant Department of Corrections (DOC) and the dissent is that
plaintiff 's commission of a felony has made it impossible for defendant, which is subject to the
strictures of MCL 791.205a, to mitigate its damages and offer reasonable employment under
subsection 301(5)(a) of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL
418.301(5)(a), and therefore subsection 361(1) of the WDCA, MCL 418.361(1), applies. The
Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) accepted this rationale in the abstract,
but concluded that the magistrate had not erred in concluding that there was insufficient factual
support for the underlying premise that were it not for plaintiff 's status as a convicted felon,
defendant would have offered reasonable employment to plaintiff. The WCAC dissenters and
the dissent here view that approach as illogical and subjecting defendant to a "Catch-22." I
disagree.
The WCAC majority did not conclude that defendant must actually offer the prohibited
employment. Rather, it determined that in any given case, in order for the DOC statutory bar on
employing felons to render WDCA subsection 361(1) applicable, there must be a factual finding
that the DOC bar actually prevented the DOC from offering reasonable employment, i.e., that the
DOC in fact had an open position constituting reasonable employment that plaintiff could have
performed, and that it would have offered such employment had the bar not been in effect.
Stated differently, the WCAC majority rejected the concept of an absolute disqualification of
benefits without regard to whether the DOC was in fact deprived of the mitigation defense
offered by WDCA subsection 301(5)(a), pertaining to the offer of reasonable employment. I find
no error in this reasoning.
Accordingly, regardless of whether the lead opinion's or the dissenting opinion's view of
the interrelationship of MCL 791.205a and MCL 418.361(1) is accepted, I conclude that the
decision of the WCAC should be affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
