Man's "slip and fall" case dismissed after court finds evidence of deceitful discovery answers

In Marwani v. Chalmers Service Station, Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals recently upheld the summary dismissal of Marwani's premises liabilty claim against the owner of a closed gas station.  The dismissal was a sanction for what the court described as "overwhelming evidence of plaintiff's numerous, willful misrepresentations...[and] egregious behavior...[which were]...not the product of misunderstanding, inadvertence, or negligent failure to investigate." 

Apparently, Marwani fell into the oil change pit on the property after asking if he could apply for work and being told to wait inside.  He initially filed a claim for workers compensation benefits and answered Interrogatories suggesting that he understood he had been hired and was sent into the building to retrieve salt for the building manager.  At his deposition he admitted that he had not been hired by the defendant.  His initial claim was deemed frivolous and his injury claim was dismissed as a sanction. The entire claim smacks of a poor understanding of the law by Marwani or his attorney.  The standards for determining "employment" are straightforward and easily discernable; and if Marwani was an employee, his sole remedy would be workers compensation--making a civil premises liabilty action untenable and frivolous.