with plaintiffs benefits, by ignoring the requirement to deal with his attorney, by threatening to cut off ... [his] benefits, and by demanding that ... [he] repay them a large sum of money.... [Defendants were abusing their control of [the] plaintiffs income ... to harass and intimidate him to gain economic benefit for the insurance company. Id. at 791, 431 N.W.2d 95. In Broaddus, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the WDCA’s exclusive-remedy provision does not bar an action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress surrounding the defendants’ alleged collusion in denying workers’ compensation benefits where the essence of the tort and the damage alleged is non-physical, such as emotional and mental distress damages. 84 Mich. App. at 597, 600, 600 n. 4, 269 N.W.2d 689 (<HOLDING>). As the Court of Appeals later clarified,
holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding that an injured workers initial election to seek state compensation does not implicate the exclusivity provision to preclude the worker from later seeking compensation under the longshore act holding that the plaintiffs were not seeking as damages compensation for workers compensation benefits and noting that the defendants on remand are still free to challenge particular damage claims on the ground that the wdca renders them compensable so as to bar them under its exclusiveremedy provision