Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.

OPINION

In this case, a major league baseball player for the Detroit Tigers (the “Club”) sued the Club for injuries to his pitching arm. The Club was granted summary judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the player’s claims were barred by the federal Labor-Management Relations Act, the Michigan Workers Disability Compensation Act, and Michigan’s statute of frauds. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant Douglas Brocail is a professional relief pitcher and a union member of the Major League Baseball Players Association. As such, his employment agreements with major league baseball teams (“Clubs”) are subject to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) negotiated between the players and the member Clubs. This case concerns alleged acts or omissions that occurred or began during the 2000 baseball season, when Brocail was employed by appellee, the Detroit Tigers, Inc.

A. The Employment Documents

Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, Players and Clubs are required to execute a specific form of a standard contract (the Uniform Player’s Contract or “UPC”) when entering into an employment agreement. Under the UPC governing Bro-cail’s employment by the Club, he received a $600,000 signing bonus, a salary of $900,000 for the 2000 season, and a guar *95 anteed salary of $2 million for the 2001 season. In section 6(a) of the UPC, the parties agreed that Brocail’s contract could be assigned to any other baseball clubs. In section 6(b), Brocail agreed that, “should the Club contemplate an assignment of this contract to another Club or Clubs, the Club’s physician may furnish to the physicians and officials of such other Club or Clubs all relevant medical information relating to” Brocail. Brocail further agreed to “accept, abide by and comply with all provisions of the Major League Agreement, the Major League Rules, and the Rules or Regulations of the League of which the Club is a member....” 1 These provisions included League Regulation 2, which provides as follows:

The Player, when requested by the Club, must submit to a complete physical examination at the expense of the Club, and if necessary to treatment by a regular physician or dentist in good standing.... Disability directly resulting from injury sustained in the course and within the scope of his employment under this contract shall not impair the right of the Player to receive his full salary for the period of such disability or for the season in which the injury was sustained (whichever period is shorter), together with the reasonable medical and hospital expenses incurred by reason of the injury and during the term of this contract or for a period of up to two years from the date of initial treatment for such injury, whichever period is longer, but only upon the express prerequisite conditions that (a) written notice of such injury, including the time, place, cause and nature of the injury, is served upon and received by the Club within twenty days of the sustaining of said injury and (b) the Club shall have the right to designate the doctors and hospitals furnishing such medical and hospital services. Failure to give such notice shall not impair the rights of the Player, as herein set forth, if the Club has actual knowledge of such injury. All workmen’s compensation payments received by the Player as compensation for loss of income for a specific period during which the Club is paying him in full, shall be paid over by the Player to the Club. Any other disability may be ground for suspending or terminating this contract.

The parties also included “Supplemental Agreements” in the UPC, such as the following:

The Club and the Player covenant that this contract, the Basic Agreement and the Agreement Re Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan effective April 1, 1996 and applicable supplements thereto fully set forth all understandings and agreements between them, and agree that no other understandings or agreements, whether heretofore or hereafter made, shall be valid, recognizable, or of any effect whatsoever, unless expressly set forth in a new or supplemental contract executed by the Player and the Club (acting by its President or such other officer as shall have been thereunto duly authorized by the President or Board of Directors as evidenced by a certificate filed of record with the League President and Commissioner) and complying with the Major League Rules.

B. Agreement to Provide Medical Services

The Club represents that under an “Agreement to Provide Medical Services” to the Club, the Henry Ford Center for Athletic Medicine (the “Center”) agreed to *96 select and provide well-qualified medical doctors to act as “team physicians” in exchange for a fixed annual fee. 2 The Center and the Club further agreed that such physicians would remain employees of the Center, and that the “[ajgreement is intended solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto and shall not be deemed to create any rights in any other person or entity.” The Center designated Dr. Terrence Lock, a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon, to act as one of the team physicians.

C. Injury and Treatment While Employed by the Tigers

On June 14, 2000 in Detroit, Michigan, Brocail began to complain of pain and inflammation in his right elbow. A follow-up injury report contained the notation that an x-ray performed the same day revealed spurring and new bone formation at the medial epicondyle. Another note entered two days later records that, per Dr. Lock, Brocail had “spurring with inflammation medial epicondyle,” but the ligaments and tendons were intact. An injury report also records that Dr. Lock examined Brocail again on June 28, 2000, and Brocail was still tender but “getting better,” and physicians would “consider CT if [the pain] persist[ed.]” Brocail was examined and x-rayed again on July 10, 2000.

After pitching on August 18, 2000, Bro-cail experienced increased medial soreness and mild swelling. He was placed on the disabled list; had additional x-rays on August 21; and was examined by Dr. Failla, another physician employed by the Center, on August 22, 2000. The following day, Brocail sought a second opinion from Dr. James Andrews in Birmingham, Alabama. The Club paid for Brocail’s consultation with Dr. Andrews.

Brocail returned to Michigan, and at the beginning of September 2000, he was removed from the disabled list. After he practiced pitching on September 6 or 7, 2000, he was again restricted from throwing, and additional tests were performed on September 19, 2000.

On September 22, 2000, Dr. Kyle Anderson, another of the Center’s physicians, performed arthroscopic surgery on Brocail’s elbow. Dr. Anderson noted “very significant spur formation” and removed two loose bone fragments. The sutures were removed on September 29, 2000, and Brocail was placed on the 60-day disabled list. Brocail decided to return to his home in Missouri City, Texas while recuperating from surgery, and he received rehabilitation services in the neighboring city of Sugar Land. 3 He was removed from the disabled list in the first half of November 2000, and on or about December 11, 2000, the Club traded Bro-cail to the Houston Astros. Brocail’s medical bills through December 20, 2000 were paid by the Club’s worker’s compensation insurance carrier.

D. Injury and Treatment While Employed by the Astros

On April 4, 2001, Brocail heard a loud pop in his right elbow while pitching in Texas. He played in four more “rehabilitation outings,” then consulted Dr. Thomas Mehlhoff in Houston on April 17, 2001. He was diagnosed with a full tear of the medial collateral ligament and a partial tear of the flexor tendon. He subsequently had surgery in Houston to reconstruct the medial collateral ligament. Due to the *97 long recovery time from the surgery, Bro-cail did not continue to pitch for the Ast-ros. The Astros paid Brocail’s 2001 salary, but when his contract expired at the end of that season, it was not renewed. Broeail was not paid a salary for the 2002 and 2003 seasons. According to Broeail, he returned to pitching for the Texas Rangers in 2004.

E. Brocail’s Allegations

On September 20, 2002, Broeail sued his Michigan and Texas health care providers. In addition, he sued the Club for negligence, fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, and breach of contract. According to Broeail, the Club “encouraged and/or directed him to seek treatment from team personnel that did not possess the expertise, skill, training, experience, ability, competence and/or knowledge to properly diagnose and treat an elbow injury sustained by a major league baseball pitcher....” Broeail further alleged that the Club encouraged or directed him to undergo treatment that would not cure his injury and failed to (a) establish policies and procedures for the treatment of its players, (b) follow team physicians’ orders, (c) fully disclose the true extent of his condition and his fitness to play baseball, (d) use reasonable care to protect his health and investment, (e) fully advise him of the adverse effects of continued medical and rehabilitative treatment, (f) advise him of options concerning his condition, (g) perform appropriate examinations, and (h) advise the Houston Astros of the true extent of his ability to play baseball. In addition, he contended the Club was negligent in hiring team personnel. Broeail also pleaded the discovery rule, agency, ostensible agency, agency by estoppel, equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, vicarious liability, and “intentional torts,” and sought punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Finally, he pleaded that:

[Brocail’s] claims are not within the scope of any purportedly applicable worker’s compensation laws and are not barred by any exclusive remedy provision therein.... As a professional athlete whose average weekly wage was not less than 200% of the state average weekly wage, Broeail had no right to the recovery of weekly compensation benefits and any exclusive remedy provision does [not] apply. 4

On January 31, 2003, the trial court dismissed Brocail’s claims against the Michigan health care providers for lack of personal jurisdiction. Brocail v. Anderson, 132 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). Broeail subsequently non-suited his claims against the remaining health care providers.

F. Summary Judgment

On June 29, 2005, the Club moved for final summary judgment on the following six grounds:

(i) Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) 5 preempts and bars Brocail’s claims because (a) he did not assert his claim within the applicable federal six-month statute of limitations, and (b) he failed to exhaust his remedies under the collective bargaining agreement;

*98 (ii) the exclusive-remedy provision of the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (the “WDCA”) bars Brocail’s claims; 6

(iii) Michigan’s statute of frauds bars Brocail’s claims because the alleged oral promises regarding medical treatment or warranties were not in writing;

(iv) Brocail’s promissory estoppel claim fails as a matter of law because (a) any such promise is not sufficiently clear and definite to allow recovery, (b) Brocail could not have reasonably relied upon the alleged promise as a matter of law, and (c) any promissory estoppel claim is not viable in light of the contract between Brocail and the Club;

(v) Brocail’s vicarious liability theories fail as a matter of law because (a) the medical providers for whom Bro-cail contends the Club is vicariously hable are independent contractors, and (b) the purported wrongdoers are within the scope of immunity provided under applicable worker’s compensation law; and

(vi) Brocail’s “medical fraud” claims fail as a matter of law because (a) Bro-cail cannot meet the high burden required to show an “intentional act” under Michigan worker’s compensation law, (b) Brocail’s allegations do not relate to a past or existing fact, (c) his fraud claims are “merely recast medical negligence claims,” (d) any alleged misrepresentation could not have caused Brocail injury, and (e) any alleged reliance was unreasonable.

The trial court granted the motion without specifying its grounds. Brocail appeals the judgment regarding his tort claims, but does not appeal the judgment on his claim for breach of contract.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

Brocail presents nine issues on appeal, and the parties agree that Michigan substantive law applies. 7 In his first issue, Brocail contends the Club failed to assert in its motion for summary judgment that specific parts of the CBA or UPC required interpretation in order to resolve Brocail’s claims. He argues in his second and third issues that no interpretation of any part of the CBA or UPC is required, and no part of either agreement created or precluded the duties that are the bases of his tort claims. In his fourth issue, Brocail contends that the exclusive-remedy provision of the WDCA does not bar damage claims for which it affords no compensation. Brocail argues in his fifth issue that the Club failed to negate the misrepresentation, reliance, and causation elements of his fraud claims. In his sixth issue, Bro-cail contends that the intentional-conduct exception to the exclusive-remedy provision of the WDCA applies. In his seventh issue, he challenges the Club’s assertion that the Michigan statute of frauds bars his claims. He argues in his eighth issue that the Club did not meet its burden to negate Brocail’s various liability allegations. Finally, Brocail contends in his ninth issue that the Club’s misrepresentations are sufficiently definite to support Brocail’s claim for promissory estoppel.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We analyze a traditional motion for summary judgment under a well-established *99 standard of review. The movant bears the burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c). We review the motion and the evidence de novo, taking as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference, and resolving any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.2005). When, as here, the trial court does not specify the grounds on which the judgment is based, we will affirm the judgment if it is correct on any legal theory expressly placed at issue and supported by the evidence. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(e) (stating that issues must be “expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response”); Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex.2001) (per curiam) (holding that when the grounds for the ruling are not specified, we affirm “if any of the theories advanced are meritorious”); Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.1993) (holding that a summary judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion or response).

IV. ANALYSIS

The Club’s motion for summary judgment was largely based on the application of (a) preemption under the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), (b) the exclusive-remedy provision of the Michigan WDCA, and (c) Michigan’s statute of frauds. For the sake of clarity, we group the issues presented on appeal under these headings.

A. Labor-Management Relations Act

As its first basis for summary judgment, the Club asserted that Brocail’s claims were preempted by section 301 of the LMRA, 8 and thus, Brocail is bound by the requirements of that Act, including requirements to exhaust remedies under the applicable collective bargaining agreement and to assert claims within six months. 9 See 29 U.S.C. § 185 (codifying section 301 of the LMRA). Brocail contends that his claims are not preempted, and thus, these requirements do not apply. Preemption under the LMRA is a question of law, which we review de novo. Meredith v. La. Fed’n of Teachers, 209 F.3d 398, 404 (5th Cir.2000).

Given the importance of maintaining uniform federal law, “the Supreme Court has made clear that § 301 of the LMRA preempts any state-law claim arising from a breach of a collective bargaining agreement.” Smolarek v. Chrysler Corp., 879 F.2d 1326, 1329 (6th Cir.1989) (en banc). Preemption under section 301 also applies to many tort claims ostensibly asserted under state law. Id. at 1329-30 (citing Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 217, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985)). To survive preemption, tort claims must be “independent” of the CBA. Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 409-10, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1883, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989); Allis-Chalmers Corp., 471 U.S. at 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (analyzing state-law claim to determine if it was “independent of any right established by contract, or, instead, whether evaluation of the tort claim [was] inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract”); Mattis v. Massman, 2004 Fed.App. 0003P, 355 F.3d 902, 905 (6th Cir.2004) (same). Thus, *100 the LMRA not only preempts state-law claims that are based directly on rights created by a collective bargaining agreement, but also preempts claims that are “substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms made between the parties in a labor contract....” Stringer v. Nat’l Football League, 474 F.Supp.2d 894, 900 (S.D.Ohio 2007) (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp., 471 U.S. at 220, 105 S.Ct. at 1916). But “neither a tangential relationship to the CBA, nor [a] defendant’s assertion of the contract as an affirmative defense [can] turn an otherwise independent claim into a claim dependent on the labor contract.” DeCoe v. Gen. Motors Corp., 1994 FED App. 0261P, 32 F.3d 212, 216 (6th Cir.1994).

Courts follow a two-step approach to determine whether a state-law tort claim is sufficiently “independent” to survive LMRA preemption. First, the court “must examine whether proof of the state law claim requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement terms.” 10 Second, the court “must ascertain whether the right claimed by the plaintiff is created by the collective bargaining agreement or by state law.” 11 The claim is preempted unless it is created by state law and does not require interpretation of the CBA. 12 If a plaintiff can prove all of the elements of the claim without the need for contract interpretation, then his claim is independent of the labor agreement and is not preempted. 13 But if resolution of the state-law claim is “substantially dependent” on an analysis of the terms of the CBA or “inextricably intertwined” with it, the claim is preempted by the LMRA. 14

1. Asserted, as a Basis for Summary Judgment

In his first issue, Brocail contends that because the Club’s motion contains no assertion that any specific part of the CBA or UPC must be interpreted to resolve any of Brocail’s claims, the Club did not expressly move for summary judgment on the grounds that Brocail’s claims are preempted by the LMRA. Thus, he reasons, summary judgment cannot be affirmed on this basis. The Club responds that Brocail failed to specially except to the motion and therefore waived his complaint that the motion lacked specificity. See McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 342 (Tex.1993) (plurality op.) (“An exception is required should a non-movant wish to complain on appeal that the grounds relied on by the movant were unclear or ambiguous.”); Franco v. Slavonic Mut. Fire Ins. Ass’n, 154 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (special exception is required to preserve complaint that a motion for summary judgment is vague or lacks specificity). The excepting party also must obtain a ruling on the special exception to preserve the issue for appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; Franco, 154 S.W.3d at 784.

Rather than specially excepting to the alleged omission and thereby giving the Club an opportunity to amend, Brocail challenged the alleged omission substantively. In his response, he asserted that the Club “fail[ed] to identify a single provision of the CBA or UPC that must be *101 interpreted to resolve Brocail’s tort claims” or “to resolve the factual issues” identified in the motion for summary judgment. According to Brocail’s arguments in the trial court, the Club’s failure to cite a specific provision of the CBA that requires interpretation demonstrates that no interpretation is necessary to resolve his claims. 15

We agree with the Club. A special exception was required to preserve Brocail’s argument for appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; Franco, 154 S.W.3d at 784. And even if Brocail’s argument could be construed as a special exception to the motion’s lack of specificity, Brocail identifies no ruling in the record on such an exception. See Tex. R.App. P. 33.1(a)(2) (to preserve a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the trial court implicitly or expressly ruled on the objection, or the complaining party objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule). We therefore conclude that Brocail’s appellate argument regarding the Club’s failure to cite specific provisions of the CBA is waived, and we overrule Brocail’s first issue. 16

2. Need to Interpret Specifíc Contract Provisions

Brocail next contends that the resolution of his tort claims does not require the interpretation of any specific provision of the CBA, the UPC, or the League Regulations. Similarly, he argues in his third issue that these documents did not create or preclude the duties that are the bases of his tort claims. Both arguments are only partially correct. 17

a. Claims Based on Duty to Provide Reasonable Medical Care

In support of his argument that his claims arise under Michigan state law and *102 do not require interpretation of the CBA, Brocail relies on the following provision of Michigan’s Worker’s Disability Compensation Act:

The employer shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to an employee who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services and medicines, or other attendance or treatment recognized by the laws of this state as legal, when they are needed.

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.315(1). The Club, however, argues that Brocail’s claims rely on the Club’s alleged breach of a contractually-implied duty to provide medical care, and “[wjithout reference to and reliance on the CBA, the UPC and the Regulations, the Tigers would have no duty or obligation to provide any medical services to Brocail.” 18

We need not look for such an implied duty in these agreements because the parties are bound by express state statutes, and the Club could not “opt out” of Michigan workers’ compensation law. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.111 (“Every employer, public and private, and every employee, unless herein otherwise specifically provided, shall be subject to the provisions of this act and shall be bound thereby.”) (emphasis added). The Club’s position is inconsistent with the unambiguous language of section 418.315(1), which requires it to provide reasonable medical care.

Because the determination of the Club’s duty and alleged breach of duty to provide Brocail with reasonable medical services can be resolved without reference to the CBA, the UPC, or the Regulations, these claims are not preempted by the LMRA. See Lingle, 486 U.S. at 409-10, 108 S.Ct. at 1883 (“[A]s long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the agreement for § 301 pre-emption purposes.”). Thus, Brocail’s claims that the Club breached a duty to provide reasonable medical care are not preempted by the LMRA. But as discussed infra, these claims — which include Brocail’s allegations that the Club (i) encouraged or directed Brocail to seek treatment from unskilled team personnel; (ii) failed to seek determination of proper treatment from a skilled physician; (iii) “failed to use reasonable care with plaintiff’; (iv) failed to use reasonable care to protect plaintiffs health; and (v) faded to perform the appropriate examinations to determine his pre-partic-ipation or qualifying status, identify future risk of injury, determine his fitness to play baseball, prevent subsequent injury, and assess his rehabilitative status — are barred by the WDCA.

Some of Brocail’s claims, however, are not based on the duty to provide reasonable medical care. And as discussed below, we reach a different result concerning the preemption of claims arising from the alleged violation of duties found only in the CBA.

b. Claims Based on Express Contractual Duties

Brocail contends that the Club “failed to provide a proper second opinion before encouraging, endorsing or directing Brocail to undergo treatment....” But Brocail points to no authority in Michigan *103 law that required the Club to “provide a proper second opinion,” nor have we found such a requirement. 19 To the contrary, the only basis on which to imply a duty to provide a second medical opinion is found in the CBA.

Article XIII, section D of the CBA is entitled “Second Medical Opinion” and provides as follows:

Within 20 days following the execution of this Agreement, the Clubs will provide an updated, accepted listing of medical specialists, by specialty and by geographic regions, to whom Players may upon their request go for diagnosis and a second medical evaluation of an employment[-]related illness or injury being treated by the Club physician. At least two physicians will be designated for each specialty in each region. Further, the Association and the Clubs shall promptly agree on appropriate procedures by which this listing of medical specialists will be updated annually. A Player may seek a “second evaluation” from a medical specialist on the accepted listing who is located outside the geographic region within which the Player’s Club is located, provided that the Player is not absent from the Club for an unreasonable time.

Thus, to determine whether the Club was required to provide a second opinion and to define the meaning of a “proper second opinion,” it is necessary to interpret the CBA. Consequently, this claim is preempted by the LMRA. We therefore overrule Brocail’s second and third issues as they pertain to any duty of the Club concerning a “second opinion.”

We reach a similar result regarding Brocail’s claims arising from his trade to the Houston Astros. Because the CBA governs assignment of his contract, Bro-cail’s claim that the Club fraudulently induced him to enter a contract with the Astros is preempted. See Burgos v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 20 F.3d 633, 636 (5th Cir.1994) (“In order to determine whether Southwestern Bell acted wrongfully in the way it transferred [the employee] from one section to another, required him to take different tests, and ultimately effectuated his termination, an analysis of Southwestern Bell’s obligations under the collective bargaining agreement is necessary.”). In particular, it is necessary to interpret the CBA to determine whether Brocail’s consent to the assignment was necessary, and whether reliance on any representation by the Club concerning assignment of his contract was reasonable in light of the CBA. 20 See Feitl v. Los Angeles Clippers, 48 F.3d 1227, 1995 WL 100596, at *3 (9th Cir. March 8, 1995) (unpublished mem. op.) (“Because Feitl knew at the time of the alleged fraud that any employment he might have with LAC was governed by a CBA, Feitl must prove that his reliance was justified in light of the CBA”) (citing Milne Employees Ass’n v. Sun Carriers, Inc., 960 F.2d 1401, 1408-09 (9th Cir.1991)). Thus, we overrule Brocail’s second and third issues as they pertain to his claim of fraudulent inducement.

B. Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act

Under Michigan law, “[e]very employer, public and private, and every em *104 ployee, unless ... otherwise specifically provided [in the WDCA], shall be subject to the provisions of this act and shall be bound thereby.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.111. The WDCA applies to all private, non-agrieultural employers who regularly employ three or more employees at one time, excluding family members employed as domestic servants. See id. §§ 418.115(a); 418.118(1). In addition, any private employer who purchases and accepts a valid workers’ compensation insurance policy, except in the case of domestics and agricultural employees, assumes “the liability for compensation and benefits imposed by this act upon employers.” Id. § 418.121.

The parties do not dispute that the Club had a valid worker’s compensation insurance policy in effect at the time of Brocail’s injury, and that medical benefits were paid pursuant to that policy. Thus, the Club is an employer subject to the WDCA. See id. §§ 418.111, 418.121. In addition, Brocail is an employee as that term is used in the Act:

(1) As used in this act, “employee” means:

[[Image here]]

(l) Every person in the service of another, under any contract of hire, express or implied....

[[Image here]]

(n) Every person performing service in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of an employer at the time of the injury, if the person in relation to this service does not maintain a separate business, does not hold himself or herself out to and render service to the public, and is not an employer subject to this act.

Id. § 418.161. The WDCA further provides:

The right to the recovery of benefits as provided in this act shall be the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease. The only exception to this exclusive remedy is an intentional tort. An intentional tort shall exist only when an employee is injured as a result of a deliberate act of the employer and the employer specifically intended an injury. An employer shall be deemed to have intended to injure if the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. The issue of whether an act was an intentional tort shall be a question of law for the court. This subsection shall not enlarge or reduce rights under the law.

Id. § 418.131(1). Here, Brocail seeks to recover for a personal injury sustained in the course and scope of his employment. Thus, with the exception of intentional torts as described above, the WDCA affords his only remedy.

1. Uncompensated Loss of Earnings

To avoid the exclusive-remedy provision, Brocail points out that section 418.360 of the WDCA bars his receipt of weekly earnings benefits otherwise available under the act:

(1) A person who suffers an injury arising out of and in the course of employment as a professional athlete shall be entitled to weekly benefits only when the person’s average weekly wages in all employments at the time of application for benefits, and thereafter, as computed in accordance with section 371, are less than 200% of the state average weekly wage.

*105 (2) This section shall not be construed to prohibit an otherwise eligible person from receiving benefits under section 315,[ 21 ] 319,[ 22 ] or 361.[ 23 ]

Id. § 418.360 (internal footnotes referencing prior laws omitted). Thus, Brocail reasons, the exclusive-remedy provision of the WDCA does not apply to his claim for earnings-related damages. Stated differently, he argues that section 418.360(1) provides an exception to the exclusive-remedy provision of section 418.131(1).

In support of this argument, Brocail relies on Eversman v. Concrete Cutting & Breaking, Inc., in which the Michigan Supreme Court explained:

The primary purpose of the worker’s compensation act is to provide benefits to the victims of work-related injuries by allocating the burden of these payments to the employer, and, therefore, ultimately, to consumers. An employee who suffers an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment will be eligible for compensation regardless of whether the employer was at fault. In return, the employer is immunized from tort liability because the worker’s compensation act, under [section] 418.131(1) ... provides that this compensation is the exclusive remedy for a personal injury, except for an injury resulting from an intentional tort.

463 Mich. 86, 92-93, 614 N.W.2d 862, 864 (2000) (citations omitted). Because an employer is immunized for tort liability by paying the worker “compensation” for a work-related injury, Brocail contends that the reverse must also be true; thus, he argues, if the employee does not receive “compensation” for lost earnings, then the employer is not immunized from tort liability for those damages. He argues that “[cjourts across the country have confirmed that exclusive[-]remedy provisions apply only to damages that are compensa-ble under a worker’s compensation statute.”

a. Haddad v. Justice

In support of this position, Brocail first relies on Haddad v. Justice, in which the Michigan Court of Appeals wrote:

Plaintiffs’ complaint contained a claim for property damage and the wife’s claim for loss of consortium. As to the wife’s claim for loss of consortium, it is barred by [section] 418.131_We find that there is no provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Act applicable to plaintiffs’ claim for property damage, and, as to it, accelerated judgment was improper.

64 Mich.App. 74, 77, 235 N.W.2d 159, 160-61 (1975).

*106 But Haddad does not support Broeail’s argument. For example, the WDCA provides no compensation for loss of consortium; nevertheless, the Haddad court applied the exclusive-remedy provision to this derivative claim.

Broeail responds that the loss of consortium claim in Haddad was not covered because claims under the WDCA are personal. But this proposition is not supported by the language of the Act. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.131(2) (“As used in this section ..., ‘employee’ includes the person injured, his or her personal representatives, and any other person to whom a claim accrues by reason of the injury to, or death of, the employee ....”) (emphasis added). Thus, the exclusive-remedy provision also applies to anyone to whom a claim accrues as a result of the employee’s injury or death.

Significantly, the identification of persons to whom the Act applies is based on the injury, not the compensation provided. Regarding the property-damage claim in Haddad, section 418.131 provides that the “right to recovery of benefits as provided in this act shall be the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease.” Id. § 418.131(1) (emphasis added). Because the plaintiffs claim for property damage was not derived from the worker’s claim of personal injury or disease, it was neither covered nor barred by the WDCA. But Haddad does not stand for the proposition that the exclusive-remedy provision is inapplicable to claims arising from an employee’s injury simply because the Act provides no compensation for the particular category of damages sought.

b. Sole Exception to the Exclusive-Remedy Provision

Contrary to Brocail’s arguments, intentional torts are the “only exception” to the exclusive-remedy rule. 24 Under Michigan law, the applicability of the workers’ compensation act is not determined by whether the claimant is fully compensated for a particular category of damages, because “benefits provided by existing compensation acts are not expected to be full payment for all losses suffered.” 25 Instead, it is “a fundamental tenet of workers’ compensation statutes that if an injury falls within the coverage of the compensation law, such compensation shall be the employee’s only remedy against the employer_” Reed v. Yackell, 473 Mich. 520, 530, 703 N.W.2d 1, 6-7 (2005) (emphasis added) (quoting Farrell v. Dearborn Mfg. Co., 416 Mich. 267, 274-75, 330 N.W.2d 397, 399 (1982)); see also Downie, 122 Mich.App. at 737, 333 N.W.2d at 535 (“When an employee’s injury is within the scope of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, workers’ compensation benefits are the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer.”); McKinley v. Holiday Inn, 115 Mich.App. 160, 163, 320 N.W.2d 329, 331