Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Chief Justice: Justices:
Opinion Marilyn Kelly Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
Diane M. Hathaway
FILED MAY 10, 2010
ANTHONY J. BREWER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 139068
A. D. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., and
ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
CORRIGAN, J.
This case requires us to consider whether a recent expansion of the subject-
matter jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Agency over out-of-state
injuries, MCL 418.845, as amended by 2008 PA 499, applies retroactively to cases
in which the claimant was injured before the effective date of the amendment. We
hold that the amendment does not apply because the statutory text does not
manifest a legislative intent to apply the amendment to antecedent injuries.
Moreover, the amendment does not fall within an exception for remedial or
procedural amendments that may apply retroactively; rather, it created an
important new legal burden and potentially enlarged existing substantive rights.
We thus affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission
(WCAC) upholding the magistrate’s dismissal of plaintiff’s petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Plaintiff Anthony J. Brewer, a Michigan resident, sought workers’
compensation benefits for an injury he allegedly suffered in Ohio in 2003 while
working for defendant A. D. Transport Express, Inc., as a truck driver. Defendant
denied that plaintiff’s contract of hire was made in Michigan, a necessary
condition for the Workers’ Compensation Agency to exercise jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s out-of-state injury under the jurisdictional standard in effect when
plaintiff was injured, MCL 418.845, as enacted by 1969 PA 317. Despite
acknowledging that whether the contract of hire was made in Michigan was at
issue, plaintiff’s counsel failed to present any direct proof regarding where and
how plaintiff was hired.
Defendant’s trucking company is headquartered in Canton, Michigan, but it
has satellite offices in Kentucky and New Jersey and provides transportation
services nationwide. Plaintiff’s payroll and employment records showed the
Canton office address, but the magistrate found that these facts did not satisfy
plaintiff’s burden of proof to establish jurisdiction. The record contained no
evidence of what contact, if any, plaintiff had with the Canton office during the
hiring process. Moreover, plaintiff’s employment required him to drive to
destinations in both Michigan and Ohio. The magistrate thus concluded that
2
speculation would be required to find that the contract of hire was made in
Michigan and dismissed plaintiff’s petition.
The WCAC affirmed, finding no facts that would allow the magistrate to
conclude that the contract of hire was made in Michigan. It noted plaintiff’s
failure to present evidence of the circumstances or location of his hiring.
The Court of Appeals denied plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal for
lack of merit in the grounds presented.1
Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We directed the clerk to
schedule oral argument on the application and directed the parties to “address
whether the legislative change to MCL 418.845, 2008 PA 499, should be applied
to this case.”2
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether the amendment of MCL 418.845 enacted by 2008 PA 499 applies
retroactively is a question of law that we review de novo. Frank W Lynch & Co v
Flex Technologies, Inc, 463 Mich 578, 583; 624 NW2d 180 (2001).3
1
Brewer v A D Transport Express, Inc, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered May 5, 2009 (Docket No. 289941).
2
Brewer v A D Transport Express, Inc, 485 Mich 853 (2009).
3
No basis exists under MCL 418.861a(3) and (14) to reverse the
administrative finding that plaintiff failed to establish that the contract of hire was
made in Michigan. We thus confine our analysis to the legal question whether the
amendment enacted by 2008 PA 499 applies retroactively.
3
III. ANALYSIS
At the time of plaintiff’s injury, MCL 418.845 provided:
The bureau [now the Workers’ Compensation Agency] shall
have jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of injuries
suffered outside this state where the injured employee is a resident of
this state at the time of injury and the contract of hire was made in
this state. Such employee or his dependents shall be entitled to the
compensation and other benefits provided by this act. [Emphasis
added.]
We discussed the history of this jurisdictional provision in Karaczewski v
Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 33-38; 732 NW2d 56 (2007). The essential
point is that beginning with the first enactment of a provision in 1921, the text of
MCL 418.845 and its predecessors had, until the enactment of 2008 PA 499,
always provided jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries if (1) the injured employee
resided in this state at the time of injury and (2) the contract of hire was made in
Michigan. In Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515; 505 NW2d 544 (1993),
however, a majority of this Court declined to enforce the residency requirement on
the basis of its view that the requirement had not been enforced since its rejection
by Roberts v I X L Glass Corp, 259 Mich 644; 244 NW 188 (1932).4 The Boyd
Court viewed the residency requirement as “not only undesirable but also unduly
restrictive.” Boyd, 443 Mich at 524.
4
This view was rejected in Karaczewski, 478 Mich at 34-38, because a
majority of the Court believed that the residency requirement had been applied
since the enactment of 1943 PA 245.
4
In Karaczewski, the majority opinion overruled Boyd and held that MCL
418.845 must be applied as written. The majority explained that the Legislature’s
use of the conjunctive term “and” required that both jurisdictional requirements be
met. Karaczewski, 478 Mich at 33. Nonetheless, in order to protect the reliance
interests of plaintiffs who had received or were receiving benefits as part of a final
judgment, the majority applied its holding only to claimants for whom there had
not been a final judgment awarding benefits as of the date of the opinion. Id. at 45
n 15.5
Following this Court’s decision in Karaczewski, the Legislature enacted
2008 PA 499, effective on January 13, 2009, amending MCL 418.845 to provide
jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries “if the injured employee is employed by an
employer subject to this act and if either the employee is a resident of this state at
the time of injury or the contract of hire was made in this state.” (Emphasis
added.) Thus, under the amendment, a claimant injured outside Michigan need
only show either that he was a Michigan resident at the time of his injury or that
his contract of hire was made in this state. This expansion of jurisdiction is
unprecedented because even under Boyd, a claimant was required to show that the
5
On the same date that we heard oral argument in this case, this Court also
heard argument in Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc (Docket No.
137500) regarding whether the Karaczewski holding should be further limited to
apply only prospectively. As plaintiff has acknowledged, however, the extent of
retroactivity of Karaczewski has no bearing on this case because the jurisdictional
requirement at issue here, that the contract of hire have been made in Michigan,
was enforced even under Boyd.
5
contract of hire was made in Michigan. The Legislature has now gone further to
authorize jurisdiction when a Michigan resident is injured outside Michigan under
a contract of hire that was not made in Michigan.6
The question we must resolve is whether the amendment of MCL 418.845
enacted by 2008 PA 499 applies retroactively to a claimant such as plaintiff who
was injured before the effective date of the amendment. “In determining whether
a statute should be applied retroactively or prospectively only, ‘[t]he primary and
overriding rule is that legislative intent governs. All other rules of construction
and operation are subservient to this principle.’” Frank W Lynch, 463 Mich at 583
(citation omitted). Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only unless a
contrary intent is clearly manifested. Id. “We note that the Legislature has shown
on several occasions that it knows how to make clear its intention that a statute
apply retroactively.” Id. at 584; see also Nicholson v Lansing Bd of Ed, 423 Mich
89, 93; 377 NW2d 292 (1985) (stating that in workers’ compensation cases, the
statutory provision in effect at the time of the injury governs “unless the
Legislature clearly indicates a contrary intention”). Even if the Legislature acts to
invalidate a prior decision of this Court, the amendment is limited to prospective
application if it enacts a substantive change in the law. Hurd v Ford Motor Co,
423 Mich 531, 533; 377 NW2d 300 (1985).
6
Although constitutional challenges to this expansion of jurisdiction may
arise, no such issues have been raised in this case, and we need not address them at
this time.
6
Here, 2008 PA 499 contains no language that would clearly manifest a
legislative intent to apply the new jurisdictional standard retroactively. The
amendment merely states the new jurisdictional standard; it contains no language
suggesting that this new standard applies to antecedent events or injuries.
Therefore, the amendment applies only to injuries occurring on or after the
effective date of the amendment, January 13, 2009.
In addition, this Court has recognized that “providing a specific, future
effective date and omitting any reference to retroactivity” supports a conclusion
that a statute should be applied prospectively only. See White v Gen Motors Corp,
431 Mich 387, 398-399; 429 NW2d 576 (1988) (opinion by RILEY, J.), relying on
Selk v Detroit Plastic Prods (On Resubmission), 419 Mich 32, 35 n 2; 348 NW2d
652 (1984). As discussed, in adopting 2008 PA 499, the Legislature provided a
specific, future effective date of January 13, 2009, and omitted any reference to
retroactivity.
Further undermining any notion of a legislative intent to apply the
amendment of MCL 418.845 retroactively is the fact that, although the Legislature
adopted the amendment after our decision in Karaczewski, it did not reinstate the
pre-Karaczewski state of the law. On the contrary, the amendment enacted by
2008 PA 499 created an entirely new jurisdictional standard, granting jurisdiction
over out-of-state injuries of Michigan employees whose contracts of hire were not
made in Michigan. That is, this amendment did not restore the status quo before
Karaczewski, which required a Michigan contract of hire for jurisdiction, but
7
instead created a new rule under which either a Michigan contract of hire or
Michigan residency would suffice. In light of these circumstances and the text of
the amendment, we simply can discern no clearly manifested legislative intent to
apply the amendment retroactively.
Moreover, the amendment of MCL 418.845 does not fall within an
exception for “remedial” or “procedural” amendments that may apply
retroactively. Frank W Lynch, 463 Mich at 584. In Franks v White Pine Copper
Div, 422 Mich 636, 672; 375 NW2d 715 (1985), the Court explained that “statutes
which operate in furtherance of a remedy or mode of procedure and which neither
create new rights nor destroy, enlarge, or diminish existing rights” may be applied
retroactively. An amendment that affects substantive rights is not considered
“remedial” in this context. Id. at 673; Frank W Lynch, 463 Mich at 585; White,
431 Mich at 397 (opinion by RILEY, J.). Even if a new cause of action is not
created, a statute may not be applied retroactively if it creates “‘an important new
legal burden . . . .’” Frank W Lynch, 463 Mich at 585, quoting Landgraf v USI
Film Prods, 511 US 244, 283; 114 S Ct 1483; 128 L Ed 2d 229 (1994).
We conclude that the exception for remedial or procedural amendments
does not apply because 2008 PA 499 created an important new legal burden and
potentially enlarged existing rights. By expanding the jurisdiction of the Workers’
Compensation Agency to include out-of-state injuries suffered by Michigan
employees whose contracts of hire were not made in Michigan, the amendment
imposed a new legal burden on out-of-state employers not previously subject to
8
the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Agency. It also potentially
enlarged existing rights for Michigan residents injured in other states under
contracts of hire not made in Michigan.
We thus conclude that the amendment of MCL 418.845 enacted by 2008
PA 499 does not fall within the exception for legislation that is deemed remedial
or procedural.
IV. CONCLUSION
We hold that the amendment of MCL 418.845 enacted by 2008 PA 499
does not apply retroactively to cases in which the claimant was injured before the
effective date of the amendment. The amendment contains no language clearly
manifesting a legislative intent that it apply retroactively. Moreover, the
amendment created an important new legal burden and potentially enlarged
existing rights; it consequently does not fall within an exception for remedial or
procedural amendments that may apply retroactively. We thus affirm the decision
of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission upholding the magistrate’s
dismissal of plaintiff’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Maura D. Corrigan
Michael F. Cavanagh
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
KELLY, C.J. I concur in the result only.
Marilyn Kelly
9
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY J. BREWER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 139068
A. D. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., and
ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
HATHAWAY, J. (dissenting).
We dissent from the majority’s decision in this matter. Leave to appeal was
not granted in this case. Rather, oral argument on plaintiff’s application for leave
to appeal in this Court was heard in order to determine whether we should grant
leave to appeal, deny leave to appeal, or take other peremptory action. Having
reviewed the limited briefing and having heard limited oral argument, we would
grant leave to appeal because we believe that the Court would benefit from
plenary review of the issues before rendering a decision.
Diane M. Hathaway
Elizabeth A. Weaver