Categories: Michigan Supreme Court Opinions

DONOHO v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., 474 Mich. 1057 (2006)

708 N.W.2d 444

MARY A. DONOHO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 127537.Supreme Court of Michigan.
February 3, 2006.

Leave to Appeal Denied.

SC: 127537, COA: 256525.

The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is denied as moot.

CORRIGAN, J. (concurring).

I concur in the majority’s decision to deny leave to appeal on the facts of this case. Nonetheless, I remain interested in the problem presented. The question is not whether the prevailing attorney should receive a fee, but from whom. Defendant raises a jurisprudentially significant issue involving the longstanding improper interpretation of the term “prorate.” MCL 418.315(1) apparently directs that attorney fees be prorated rather than added to the medical benefits as discussed in Commissioner Richard Leslie’s concurrence in Stankovic v. Kasle Steel Corporation, 2000 Mich ACO 124.

jdjungle