Opinion ID: 1880861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission's Fact-finding Authority

Text: I agree with the majority that the magistrate failed to make a specific fact finding regarding whether plaintiff's arthritis was a condition of the aging process. Op. at 248-249. However, I cannot agree with the majority's assertion that [w]hether a plaintiff's arthritis is part of the aging process is the type of medical factual inquiry that is reserved for the magistrate's fact-finding powers. Without a finding by the magistrate, the commission is not entitled to invoke the significant-manner test. [Op. at 249.] That the Legislature has provided the commission with fact-finding powers cannot be disputed. M.C.L. § 418.861a(14); M.S.A. § 17.237(861a)(14) clearly refers to the commission's role as factfinder by providing: [T]he findings of fact made by the commission acting within its powers, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive. Further evidence of the commission's role as finder of fact appears in subsections 861a(10) and (12), which state in relevant part: (10) The commission ... may adopt, in whole or in part, the order and opinion of the worker's compensation magistrate as the order and opinion of the commission.       (12) The commission ... may remand a matter to a worker's compensation magistrate for purposes of supplying a complete record if it is determined that the record is insufficient for purposes of review. [M.C.L. § 418.861a(10), (12); M.S.A. § 17.237(861a)(10), (12) (emphasis added).] Subsection 10 allows the commission to adopt any part of the magistrate's findings.[ [5] ] This provision would impliedly allow the commission to both disagree with and make additional findings where so required. Further, subsection 12 vests discretion regarding the sufficiency of the record with the commission. Under this subsection, remands are appropriate only where the record is incomplete or insufficient for review. Where requisite facts exist on the record, there is no need to remand. The commission's fact-finding role was acknowledged by this Court in Holden and Goff, supra, and Woody v. Cello-Foil Products (After Remand), 450 Mich. 588, 546 N.W.2d 226 (1996). Holden has neither been expressly overruled nor limited in regard to its recognition of the commission's statutorily prescribed fact-finding function. The majority is, therefore, incorrect in its assertion that: [a]ny interpretation of Holden as permitting the commission to make original fact finding on issues overlooked by the magistrate is refuted by our subsequent decision in Woody. [Op. at 249.] Contrary to the majority's assertion, the Woody majority did not hold that the commission is without authority to make fact findings in the absence of initial findings by the magistrate. Rather, it held that, where the magistrate's opinion is so unclear that administrative appellate review becomes a guessing game, [6] the commission should remand for clarification from the magistrate instead of speculating. [7] This is a far cry from the majority's interpretation of Woody's holding that would always disallow original fact finding by the commission even where, as here, the magistrate's opinion is clear and intelligible, but incomplete. Because the commission in this case did not have to engage in speculation, this case is factually distinguishable from Woody. Indeed, in this case, the magistrate's opinion is clear, but incomplete because the magistrate did not make any finding regarding the relationship of plaintiff's condition to the aging process. Such a determination was necessary given the uncontested evidence of plaintiff's preexisting arthritic condition. In light of the magistrate's failure, the commission in this case, as in Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 442 Mich. 201, 501 N.W.2d 76 (1993), had the authority to make the requisite fact findings. [8] Furthermore, the majority's claim that the magistrate is in a better position to make fact findings because the majority can observe live testimony and argument [9] is disingenuous and inapplicable to the facts of this case, in which three of the four experts to testify did so by deposition. See 439 Mich. at 286, 484 N.W.2d 227. In Weiss v. Jewish Home for the Aged, the companion case to Holden, supra, this Court affirmed the commission's finding of fact and explained that the magistrate is not in a better position than the [commission] to assess the evidence, which in that case, as in the instant case, primarily consisted of expert medical testimony by deposition. Id. at 286, 484 N.W.2d 227. Just as in Weiss, where the magistrate's failure to make factual findings did not preclude the commission from making such requisite findings, so too in the instant case, the magistrate's failure to make a finding regarding whether plaintiff's arthritis was a condition of the aging process does not preclude the commission from making such findings. [10]