Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jun 2017
12
June 12, 2017

MSC grants mini-oral argument to clarify the retroactive application of Executive Order 225 to retiree benefit contributions

The Michigan Supreme Court is not quite done with its analysis of the retroactivity of Order 225.  The Court again granted mini-oral argument in Board of Trustees of the City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac, No. 154745, to address whether (1) the Court of Appeals correctly applied the findings in LaFontaine Saline, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 496 Mich 26 (2014) to Order 225; (2) whether LaFontaine prohibited the retroactive application of Order 225 to the trust; and (3) if LaFontaine does not apply, whether Order 225’s retroactive modification of the 2011-2012 fiscal contribution to the trust is impermissible under the Michigan constitution.  This decision could have an impact on the application of Order 225 retroactively to a wide-range of obligations and claims.
 

Apr 2017
21
April 21, 2017

COA held vested retirement rights may not be altered without the retiree’s consent

In Kendzierski v County of Macomb, No. 329576, the COA held vested retirement rights may not be altered without the retiree’s consent. The COA held the trial court properly determined retirement rights had vested, however had erred by determining that defendant may reasonably modify the scope and level of the healthcare benefits without plaintiffs’ consent.

Feb 2017
08
February 08, 2017

MSC grants leave to appeal as to whether percentage allocation of premium contributions is a mandatory subject of bargaining

In Shelby Township v Command Officers Association of Michigan, No 323491, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address bargaining requirements related to public employees’ contributions to medical benefit plans pursuant to the Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act and the Public Employment Relations Act. The Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act, MCL 15.561 et seq., limits how much public employers may pay toward healthcare costs for employee medical benefit plans.  

May 2015
22
May 22, 2015

COA reaffirms that employees who file for disability benefits must present certified statements of disability

In Bowden v. Gannaway, No. 319047, the Court of Appeals held that, when applying for non-duty disability retirement benefits, an employee must present a certified writing that the employee is totally and permanently disabled; even if that employee filed for benefits before the decision in Polania v. State Employees’ Retirement System, 299 Mich. App. 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant Gannaway because Gannaway’s failure to file an appeal with the Office of Retirement Services (ORS) in a timely manner was not the proximate cause of Bowden’s losing appeal for disability benefits.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 25)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset