## Facts

- Two workers’ compensation matters were consolidated on appeal because the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) reached inconsistent results when applying the limitations provision in the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.381(1).
- **Bieber claim:** On August 13, 1984, Edward Bieber, Jr. was injured while working for Keeler Brass Company.
- Bieber requested workers’ compensation benefits, and Keeler voluntarily paid benefits until May 1985.
- After benefits ended, Bieber was injured in a non-work-related automobile accident and never returned to work.
- In February 1988, Bieber filed an application for workers’ compensation benefits. A magistrate dismissed the petition under § 381(1), reasoning Bieber failed to file a “second” claim within two years of his last day of employment.
- The WCAC affirmed the dismissal, and Bieber appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- **Barnard claim:** On September 18, 1985, John Barnard was injured while working for Acco Babcock, Inc.
- About two days after the injury, Barnard requested workers’ compensation benefits, and Acco Babcock voluntarily paid benefits until Barnard returned to work in February 1986.
- Barnard later missed additional work periods and again received voluntary workers’ compensation payments for those periods.
- Barnard then performed light-duty work until he was laid off in December 1987.
- In April 1990, Barnard filed an application for workers’ compensation benefits. The magistrate found the claim was not barred by § 381(1).
- The WCAC affirmed, and Acco Babcock appealed.

## Issues

1. Under MCL 418.381(1), must an employee who timely requested and received workers’ compensation benefits file a second claim within two years of the last day of employment to seek additional benefits for the same injury?

## Decision

- The court held that § 381(1) does not require a second claim when the employee already made a timely initial claim for the injury.
- Because Barnard made a timely claim shortly after his injury, his later application was not barred by § 381(1), and the WCAC decision in Barnard’s case was affirmed.
- Because Bieber also made a timely claim following his injury, the magistrate and WCAC erred by dismissing his later petition for lack of a second claim; the WCAC decision in Bieber’s case was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under MCL 418.381(1), the limitations period concerns whether the employee made a timely “claim” for workers’ compensation arising from the injury; a timely initial claim satisfies that requirement.
- Section 381(1) does not impose a recurring requirement that a worker refile a claim within two years of the last day worked in order to seek later periods of compensation tied to the same work injury.
- A request for workers’ compensation benefits made within the statutory period, followed by voluntary payment of benefits, supports a finding that the employee made a timely claim under § 381(1).
- Statutory interpretation should follow the text and avoid reading extra conditions into § 381(1) that would bar otherwise timely claims and create inconsistent outcomes for similarly situated employees.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted MCL 418.381(1) to require only a single timely workers’ compensation claim for a work injury and rejected the view that an employee must file a second claim within two years of the last day of employment. Applying that interpretation, the court affirmed the WCAC’s ruling that Barnard’s claim was not time-barred and reversed the WCAC’s dismissal of Bieber’s petition, remanding Bieber’s case for further proceedings on the merits.


Bieber v. Keeler Brass Company, 531 N.W.2d 803 (1995)