Opinion ID: 1976846
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the Language Ambiguous?

Text: Traditional general constructional rules to determine whether a statutory amendment or enactment should be held to operate retrospectively are well established. The primary and overriding rule is that legislative intent governs. All other rules of construction and operation are subservient to this principle. Therefore, the initial critical inquiry is whether the Legislature has stated its retrospective or prospective intention in clear and express language. See Karl v Bryant Air Conditioning Co, 416 Mich 558, 570; 331 NW2d 456 (1982). A statute is not open to construction as a matter of course, but only where the language used in the statute requires interpretation  where it is ambiguous or where two or more constructions can be placed upon it, where it is of such doubtful or obscure meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning. City of Lansing v Lansing Twp, supra, p 649. See also Owendale-Gagetown School Dist, supra, p 8; Selk, supra, p 8. We find nothing in the language of § 358 clearly indicating that workers' compensation benefits which remain payable after the statute's effective date are subject to setoff where those benefits are payable for periods of disability prior to the effective date of the section and where the unemployment benefits were also paid for periods prior to the effective date. The statute merely provides that [n]et weekly [workers' compensation] benefits payable be reduced by the amount of [unemployment] benefits paid or payable to the injured employee ... for identical periods of time and chargeable to the same employer. This language does not constitute a clear legislative statement as to retroactivity or to the period of time intended to be covered by the statute. Although it supplies some limitations as to when unemployment benefits qualify for the setoff, it says nothing about the period of time to which the setoff attaches. Where the Legislature has not stated any retrospective intention in clear and express language and the statute is ambiguous interpretation is required. See Karl, supra .