DEAN v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 463 Mich. 888 (2000)

617 N.W.2d 315

ANITA DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Self-insured, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 116211.Supreme Court of Michigan.
October 6, 2000.

COA: 222074, WCAC: 97-830

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the December 27, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows:

I dissent and would grant plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal. In this case, there was evidence of more than one cause of wage loss. The magistrate concluded that plaintiff suffered a work-related injury, that she had a subsequent loss in wages, and that the loss was directly attributable to the injury. Miklik v Michigan Special Machine Co, 415 Mich. 364, 370 (1982); Haske v Transport Leasing, Inc, Indiana, 455 Mich. 628, 663-664 (1997).

Because there was competent, material, and substantial evidence supporting the magistrate’s findings of fact, the wcac was required to treat them as conclusive. MCL 418.861a(3); MSA 17.237(861a)(3). It did not. Instead, it engaged in a de novo review of the facts. Mudel v Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich. 691, 703 (2000). I think the issue regarding that review is significant to the state’s jurisprudence and justifies our granting leave.

Therefore, taking into account the decision in Mudel, supra, I would grant leave to determine whether, here, the wcac misapprehended its administrative appellate authority.

Cavanagh, J., concurs in the statement of Kelly, J.