Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 1, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
130667 & (11) (14) (15) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
FREDIE STOKES, Maura D. Corrigan
Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 130667 Robert P. Young, Jr.
COA: 268544 Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
WCAC: 02-000388
v
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are
GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of
Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the
questions presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the Court
of Appeals. On the Court’s own motion, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H) and 7.209(D), we
order that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission in this case
is STAYED pending resolution of the appellate proceedings, and note that Boggetta v
Burroughs Corp, 368 Mich 600 (1962), remains controlling authority until reversed by
this Court. We DIRECT the Court of Appeals to grant the application for leave to appeal
in this case and issue a decision on the appeal before October 1, 2006.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
CAVANAGH, J., dissents and states as follows:
I do not agree with this Court’s order stating that Boggetta v Burroughs Corp, 368
Mich 600 (1962), is still controlling authority without an appeal and an analysis from the
parties of whether Boggetta is indeed still controlling authority. The Workers’
Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) explains somewhat convincingly why the
Legislature’s actions may have rendered Boggetta no longer controlling authority, and I
am reluctant to sign an order that states otherwise without full briefing.
Thus, I prefer a straight denial of leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals is more
than capable of assessing the importance of a case and managing its docket. I do not
believe that this case warrants this Court’s arbitrary deadline. I also note that defendant
2
has not moved for immediate consideration in the Court of Appeals, which undermines
the necessity of mandating a deadline for an opinion. More importantly, the vast majority
of workers’ compensation cases will not be affected by the WCAC’s decision. The only
cases that may be affected are limited in number, for example cases in which a magistrate
may decide whether it is necessary to order the employee to meet with the employer’s
vocational rehabilitation expert or those involving interrogatories from a defendant.
Notably, the effect on these cases is also minimal because a defendant can still present
the testimony of vocational experts to rebut the causal connection between wage loss and
disability.
For those reasons, I see no need to intervene at this juncture and would simply
deny leave.
WEAVER, J., would deny leave to appeal.
KELLY, J., joins the statement of CAVANAGH, J.
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.
June 1, 2006 _________________________________________
l0531 Clerk