Claim for retaliation in violation of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); MCL 418.301(13); Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc; Claim for retaliation in violation of the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA); Whether an injury qualified as a disability rather than a temporary medical condition

Concluding that plaintiff could not show that defendant-former employer fired him for claiming workers’ compensation benefits, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant on his claim for retaliation in violation of the WDCA. Further, he waived the issue of his PWDCRA retaliation claim, and the court found that it failed in any event. He “was a truck driver who was injured in a work-related incident. Defendant paid plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim in full and” held his job open for 10 months until “he returned to work without any restrictions from his doctor.” There was a dispute as to whether the first truck defendant provided him when he returned had a manual or automatic transmission. But the parties agreed that it “was not drivable and that the substitute truck defendant provided for plaintiff had a manual transmission. While waiting for this new truck, plaintiff left work and claimed he was going out to eat breakfast. In reality, however, plaintiff returned home and refused to return to work after learning that he would have to drive a manual-transmission truck that day.” The facility manager (O) assured him “that he could drive an automatic-transmission truck the next day, but plaintiff refused to return to work and drive the manual-transmission truck.” O interpreted this refusal to return “as plaintiff quitting. Even if [O] viewing plaintiff as quitting by refusing to return to work amounted to [O] firing plaintiff, this act clearly was not retaliation for plaintiff claiming worker’s compensation benefits. Rather, any retaliation was a response to plaintiff refusing to perform his job responsibilities.” Thus, his WDCA retaliation claim failed. The court noted that he first raised his PWDCRA retaliation claim in his motion for reconsideration, making it unpreserved. Further, even if it addressed the issue, plaintiff abandoned it “by failing to cite to adequate legal authority to support his position.” The court also found that the claim failed “on the merits because his hip injury did not qualify as a disability. Plaintiff has not established that his hip injury was anything other than a temporary medical condition to which the PWDCRA does not apply.”