Recent Cases - WCAC’s Administrative Role

Michigan Court of Appeals

WCAC’s Administrative Role

Two of the unpublished decisions from the Court of Appeals address the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s authority in reversing Magistrate’s decisions.

In Krastes v Haseley Construction Co, Inc (CA Docket No. 276545, rel’d April 10, 2008), the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Commission and reinstated the Magistrate’s order granting the defendant’s petition to stop.

Ms. Krastes had originally been granted an open award after which the employer filed a petition to stop. The employer’s petition was based on a medical examination by Dr. Drouillard and on the videotapes of plaintiff taken by a private investigator. On the basis of that evidence, the Magistrate concluded plaintiff was no longer disabled and granted the petition to stop. On appeal, the Appellate Commission reversed. The Appellate Commission said Dr. Drouillard had not examined plaintiff at the time she was originally found to be disabled and, as a consequence, had no understanding of how her condition may have changed since then. And, the Appellate Commission said the Magistrate misinterpreted the private investigator’s videotapes.

In response to the employer’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Commission saying it “overstepped its authority.” The Court of Appeals said that, although the Appellate Commission “carefully reviewed the record, it afforded little or no … deference to the magistrate’s decision and did not conduct the limited review provided by” statute. The Court of Appeals characterized the Appellate Commission’s discussion of Dr. Drouillard’s testimony as “entirely specious.” And, the Court of Appeals found the Appellate Commission merely “chose to substitute its interpretation of the videotape evidence for the magistrate’s interpretation.” The Court of Appeals therefore concluded the Appellate Commission “misapprehended or grossly misapplied its standard of review when it reversed the magistrate’s order stopping disability benefits.”

A different result ensued in Stone v R.W. Lapine, Inc (CA Docket No. 275684, rel’d April 3, 2008).

Here, the Magistrate granted plaintiff a closed award and, on plaintiff’s appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission reversed and granted him on open award.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued, amongst other things, that the Appellate Commission had misapprehended its administrative appellate role, particularly by disagreeing with the Magistrate’s application of the “‘special circumstances’” provision of the average weekly wage provision, MCL 418.371(6).

The Court of Appeals disagreed with defendant and affirmed the Appellate Commission. The Court of Appeals said the Appellate Commission “preserved the integrity of the administrative process by vacating the magistrate’s personal medical opinions and crafting an opinion based on the evidence in the record.” The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission that the Magistrate should have applied subsection (3) of the average weekly wage provision because plaintiff had worked less than 39 weeks and the “‘special circumstances’” provision of subsection (6) did not apply.