Civil Procedure

Much jurisprudential ink has been spilt on the distinction between a federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction and whether a plaintiff has stated a claim. The Supreme Court has said: “It is firmly established in our cases that the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., the court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” The analysis bogs down, however, where “the asserted basis for subject matter jurisdiction is also an element of the plaintiff’s allegedly federal cause of action.” Read More …

The Role of Discovery in Workers’ Compensation Proceedings in Michigan: An Analysis of Stokes V. Chrysler, LLC

Posted onJune 1, 2009June 3, 2012AuthorAdministrator

Workers’ Compensation remedies grew out of the hazards and problems associated with the rise of modern industry and the realization that injured workers forced to utilize common law remedies often could not recover for their injuries. In response, workers’ compensation laws provided injured workers with a streamlined no-fault procedure by which they could avoid the expense and delay inherent in civil litigation. In short, legislatures enacted workers’ compensation laws to “provide financial and medical benefits to victims of work connected injuries in an efficient, dignified, and certain form.” For these reasons, it should be axiomatic that courts and legislatures would be leery of allowing liberal discovery in a proceeding like workers’ compensation, which was designed to alleviate concerns of undue delay and expense. With the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stokes v. Chrysler, LLC, however, parties will now be able to utilize more liberal discovery in workers’ compensation proceedings, to the detriment of workers. Workers with no interim means of support will now endure higher costs and longer delays before receiving compensation for their job-related injuries. Read More …