Opinion ID: 2211907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: REMEDIAL LEGISLATION v SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE

Text: The 1987 Legislature described 1987 PA 28 as a remedial and curative amendment, § 354(17). This is a description with which the Court of Appeals agreed. [18] I do not share the same opinion. The function of curative legislation is to repair the consequences of legal accident or mistake. 2 Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed), § 41.01, p 338. A legal accident or mistake can be the result of the failure of the lawmakers to make provision for unforeseen circumstances which should have been provided for or the failure of parties to conform to nonessential legal requirements or limitations. Id. The case before us today is not one of legal accident or mistake. Quite the opposite is true. 1981 PA 203 was enacted at the conclusion of a comprehensive reform of the Workers' Disability Compensation Act. The Legislature had made the determination that the system was subject to abuse by employees who were receiving benefits from multiple sources. In turn, this would result in the employee receiving total benefits that were in excess of his workplace compensation. In order to eliminate this possibility, and to reduce the cost of workers' compensation to businesses, the coordination of benefits provision was enacted. There was no failure ... to make provisions for unforseen circumstances. The Legislature enacted a statute that gave employers the right to coordinate benefits beginning on March 31, 1982. On October 7, 1985, this Court unanimously interpreted the statute to mean that employers have the right to coordinate benefit payments regardless of the date of injury. Consequently, after having the matter resolved by the highest court in the state, General Motors and Ford had the unquestionable right to coordinate the benefits of all employees receiving workers' compensation benefits who came under the provisions of 1981 PA 203. Yet, nearly two years after the Chambers decision, and more than five years after the enactment of 1981 PA 203, the 1987 Legislature declared that General Motors and Ford did not have the right to coordinate benefits. Furthermore, § 354(19) of 1987 PA 28, required any amount so coordinated (pursuant to the statutory right as interpreted in Chambers ), to be reimbursed with interest. For a number of years, General Motors and Ford were coordinating benefit payments pursuant to their statutory right. At the very least, the companies were acting within the spirit of the law. Yet, this right was retroactively revoked by remedial legislation. Also, the curative legislation imposed upon the companies the added obligation of interest. Finally, 1987 PA 28 was enacted to invalidate this Court's decision is Chambers, thus effecting a substantive change in the law. Hurd v Ford Motor Co, 423 Mich 531, 534; 377 NW2d 300 (1985). [T]he word of the `curing' legislature should not be conclusive in determining what the prior representatives meant. The question of original intent is ultimately one for the reviewing court. Eule, Temporal limits on the legislative mandate: Entrenchment and retroactivity, 1987 Am B Found Res J 379, 448. This Court had interpreted the original intent of the 1981 Legislature. Yet, our interpretation was rejected by the 1987 Legislature. Therefore, I can not agree that the 1987 amendment was remedial and curative. Rather, I would hold that the 1987 amendment amounted to a substantive change in the law. [19]