CAROLYN GREENMAN V RALSTON PURINA COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROSITA RANGEL,
FOR PUBLICATION
November 2, 2001
9:15 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 227266
WCAC
LC No. 98-000287
RALSTON PURINA CO., Self-Insured,
Defendant-Appellant.
MATTIE COPE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 227267
WCAC
LC No. 98-000398
RALSTON PURINA CO., Self-Insured,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
DOLORES HADDIX,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 227268
WCAC
LC No. 98-000164
RALSTON PURINA CO., Self-Insured,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
-1-
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant.
CAROLYN GREENMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 227269
WCAC
LC No. 98-000661
RALSTON PURINA CO., a/k/a RALCORP
HOLDINGS, INC., Self-Insured,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
Updated Copy
January 4, 2002
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
Before: K.F. Kelly, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the severance agreement payments did not constitute a "wage continuation
plan" and join the majority in Docket Nos. 227266, 227267, and 227268. I respectfully dissent
from the majority's reversal of the WCAC's decision in Docket No. 227269.
The WCAC rejected defendant's argument that Greenman's agreement to sever her
employment, not her disability, was the cause of her subsequent unemployment and wage loss:
Since the magistrate's findings concerning the plaintiff 's work at
defendant after her injury are supported by the record [she was able to fully
perform her work only by relying on her husband and other workers], we must
reject defendant's request to terminate plaintiff 's worker's compensation benefits
as of the plant downsizing. The magistrate determined that plaintiff returned to
work after her injury and continued to aggravate her work-related injury through
her last date worked. She awarded benefits based on a last-day-worked injury
date. Regardless of whether plaintiff 's post-injury employment was reasonable,
because it exceeded her restrictions and she deteriorated, plaintiff became
disabled from this work. Therefore, the link between injury and wage loss is
supported on this record.
-2-
The WCAC also stated that it cannot be said that Greenman was avoiding work where she did
not voluntarily quit, but had her job taken from her. The record established that Greenman
would be laid off regardless of whether she accepted the severance agreement.
The magistrate and the WCAC thus found that although Greenman continued to work,
she did so with a work-related injury that disabled her from performing all the requirements of
her job. Further, she suffered aggravations to her work-related injury until her last day of work.
Finally, she stopped working because she was laid off, not because she accepted the severance
agreement. At that time, she was disabled from her work and would suffer an injury-related
wage loss. Giving the WCAC the deference to which it is entitled, Mudel v Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000), I find no error and would affirm.
/s/ Helene N. White
-3-
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.
