Opinion ID: 1842522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: porter.

Text: In this action the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's claim of appeal and Michigan Consolidated's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on Porter v State Board of Optometry, supra. In Porter the plaintiff's license was suspended by the board for three months and he sought review by the circuit court under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969. MCLA 24.301, 24.306; MSA 3.560 (201), 3.560(206). The circuit court affirmed the board ruling and plaintiff sought appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that it would be illogical to treat direct appeals to the Court of Appeals from administration agencies under GCR 1963, 806.2(1) and 806.6, in which appeals are by leave only, differently from those appeals from agency orders that have been first reviewed by the circuit court. The Court also found that administrative proceedings are not civil matters as the term is used in §§ 308 and 309 of the RJA, MCLA 600.308, 600.309; MSA 27A.308, 27A.309. We need not comment on the validity of these conclusions because Porter is distinguishable from the facts of the present action and has no relevance to the deliberation in this case. The holding in Porter failed to distinguish between those administrative agencies such as the MPSC in which a special statute expressly provides appeal as of right from those agencies such as the Board of Optometry in which no expressed statutory grant of appeal is present and review is taken pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' reliance on Porter in the decision below was misplaced since Porter did not concern an agency in which an express statutory grant of an appeal as a matter of right has been provided. Evans v United States Rubber Co, 379 Mich 457; 152 NW2d 641 (1967), cited in Porter as supporting its finding and relied upon by the defendant in the present action likewise is not determinative of the question before us. In Evans the issue was whether a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board is appealable as a matter of right. This Court stated that there is no constitutional grant of appeal as of right and, absent a specific statute, such applications are a matter of judicial discretion: We do not read the above language, [Const 1963, art 6, § 28] `shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law', to mean that in each such case review shall be compulsory or as of right upon its being invoked by either party but only that review shall be had when, in the exercise of judicial judgment and discretion, the court shall, on application, so determine, or when so provided by law. (Emphasis added.) 379 Mich 457, 461. Unlike appeals from the Compensation Board where no statutory grant of appeal exists, appeal as of right is provided by law in the case of MPSC rulings by § 26. Thus, the statutory mandate of § 26 in providing an appeal as of right in MPSC actions is clear; it has been so interpreted in the past and no prior decision of this Court or the Court of Appeals has altered or in any way disturbed this statutory right.