Cuddington v. United Health Services, Inc.
298 Mich. App. 264
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cuddington worked 12 years as a delivery technician for UHS; job involved transporting and assembling medical equipment up to 150 pounds.
- After a January 7, 2009 accident, he reported the incident to UHS; he developed shoulder/neck pain overnight.
- The next morning his wife allegedly notified UHS he was unable to work; he was told to see a doctor or be fired.
- Plaintiff sought medical care; he reported to work January 9 and was told he was “done” and to leave keys and gas card.
- The parties dispute whether he called in before his shift and whether he had a doctor’s slip per the Employee Manual.
- Plaintiff filed a WDCA-based retaliatory discharge claim; defendant moved for summary disposition; trial court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDCA retaliation scope for seeking medical services | Cuddington exercised a WDCA right by seeking medical services. | Retaliation requires filing a compensation petition first. | WDCA right to seek medical services can support retaliation; not prerequisite to all claims |
| Whether WDCA grants a right to medical services | Act requires providing/allowing medical services for work injuries. | Right to medical services is not unlimited or automatic in retaliation claims. | Employee has right to reasonable medical services; fact-intensive need determines necessity |
| Prima facie case and causation under McDonnell Douglas framework | Evidence supports causal link between sought medical services and termination. | Termination based on work attendance timing, not retaliation; need more fact development. | Prima facie shown; causation requires further factual development on remand |
| Consistency with Wilson/Griffey about anticipated claims | Not premised on anticipated future claims; based on exercising a WDCA right. | Wilson/Griffey prohibit retaliation based on anticipated future claims. | Distinguishes by requiring actual exercise of a WDCA right; Wilson/Griffey aligned but not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunbar v. Mental Health Dept., 197 Mich App 1 (1992) (WDCA purpose to promptly deliver benefits to injured employees)
- Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289 (2011) (statutory interpretation; plain language; legislative intent)
- Phillips v Butterball Farms Co, Inc (After Second Remand), 448 Mich 239 (1995) (retaliation action sounds in tort; burden-shifting framework)
- Wilson v Acacia Park Cemetery Ass’n, 162 Mich App 638 (1987) (retaliatory discharge premised on anticipated future claims not cognizable)
- Griffey v Prestige Stamping, Inc, 189 Mich App 665 (1991) (no retaliation premised on anticipated exercise of WDCA rights)
- Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456 (2001) (direct evidence in retaliation cases; McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Lytle v Malady, 458 Mich 153 (1998) (burden-shifting in retaliation; standard for proving motivating factor)
- DeFlaviis v Lord & Taylor, Inc, 223 Mich App 432 (1997) (elements of retaliation claim under WDCA context)
- DeBrow v Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc (After Remand), 463 Mich 534 (2001) (direct evidence vs. indirect in retaliation claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework in retaliation claims)
- Texas Dept of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248 (1981) (pretext framework for retaliation proof)