Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
February 3, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
127537 & (25) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
MARY A. DONOHO, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 127537
COA: 256525
WCAC: 03-000235
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On December 14, 2005 the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave
to appeal the October 29, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court,
pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), the application for leave to appeal is again considered, and
it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be
reviewed by this Court. The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is DENIED as
moot.
CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the majority’s decision to deny leave to appeal on the facts of this case.
Nonetheless, I remain interested in the problem presented. The question is not whether
the prevailing attorney should receive a fee, but from whom. Defendant raises a
jurisprudentially significant issue involving the longstanding improper interpretation of
the term “prorate.” MCL 418.315(1) apparently directs that attorney fees be prorated
rather than added to the medical benefits as discussed in Commissioner Richard Leslie’s
concurrence in Stankovic v Kasle Steel Corporation, 2000 Mich ACO 124.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 3, 2006 _________________________________________
t0131 Clerk