Court of Appeals

Magistrates Not Bound by Rules of Evidence/Death Dependency

In Moore v Prestige Painting & Construction Association of Michigan, (CA No. 249924, released for publication October 12, 2004), the Court of Appeals resolved two issues: (1) whether Magistrates are bound by the Michigan Rules of Evidence or, instead, whether they can give probative effect to “‘evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable, prudent men in the conduct of their affairs’”; and, (2) whether an illegitimate child under the age of 16 can receive death dependency benefits.

The issues arose under the following facts. The employee died as a result of an incident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He was unmarried but had been living with a woman, the plaintiff in the case. She testified she had an exclusive romantic relationship with the decedent and he was the father of her daughter. The daughter had been born six months before the decedent’s death. The decedent had been living with plaintiff off and on during her pregnancy and did not financially support the daughter. Subsequent to the decedent’s death, plaintiff married twice and neither of those husbands adopted the daughter.

The decedent had filed a paternity action just before his death. Blood had been drawn from the decedent, plaintiff, and the daughter for paternity testing. A biochemist’s deposition in the workers’ compensation case revealed he had not personally drawn the blood for the paternity testing, but the biochemist did describe the laboratory’s standard procedure in performing the blood tests. The biochemist reviewed the raw data of the blood tests. The biochemist concluded that there was an approximately 97% probability the decedent was the father of the daughter in question.

The employer objected to the deposition testimony of the biochemist on the basis it was hearsay because he had only reviewed the final results of the blood tests and did not conduct the tests himself. The Magistrate did not directly address the objection and considered the deposition in concluding the daughter was the decedent’s child and awarded benefits. The Commission disagreed with the Magistrate with respect to this ruling. But, the Court of Appeals – in turn – disagreed with the Commission and affirmed the Magistrate.

The Court of Appeals held the biochemist’s testimony was correctly considered by the Magistrate because: “Worker’s compensation magistrates are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence.” The Court of Appeals explained that Magistrates “may admit and give probative effect to ‘evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable, prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.’” Under such standard, the Court of Appeals said the biochemist’s deposition testimony sufficiently “established the reliability of the test results by describing the standard procedures followed” and by “identifying the documents showing these procedures had been followed.”

Second, having concluded that the biochemist’s testimony was correctly considered and established the daughter was the deceased’s offspring, the Court reversed the Commission’s holding that she did not constitute a dependent under MCL 418.331(b). The Court held the conclusive presumption of dependency for a child under 16 years of age at the time of death within § 331(b) applied. The Court said that the statute applies to both legitimate and illegitimate offspring.

top