Opinion ID: 848615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The WDCA and the Circuit Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Text: MCL 418.841(1) of the WDCA provides: Any dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's compensation magistrate, as applicable. [Emphasis supplied.] The WDCA sets up comprehensive procedures for resolving disputes arising under the act. For example, MCL 418.847(1) provides that a party in interest may apply for a hearing before a worker's compensation magistrate. MCL 418.847(2) provides that a magistrate must file a written order and a concise written opinion stating his or her reasoning for the order including any findings of fact and conclusions of law. MCL 418.859a and 418.861a establish the procedures a party must follow in order to appeal a magistrate's decision within the WCB. MCL 418.859a provides that a claim for review of a case for which an application under section 847 is filed . . . shall be filed with the appellate commission. MCL 418.861a(1) provides that any claim for review filed pursuant to § 859a shall be heard and decided by the appellate commission [WCAC]. During that process, the WCAC may remand [the] 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. MCL 418.861a(12) Judicial review of magistrate and WCAC decisions is circumscribed under the WDCA. MCL 418.861 provides: The findings of fact made by the board acting within its powers, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive. The court of appeals and the supreme court shall have power to review questions of law involved in any final order of the board, if application is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after such order by any method permissible under the rules of the courts of the laws of this state. MCL 418.861a(14) similarly provides: The findings of fact made by the commission acting within its powers, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive. The court of appeals and the supreme court shall have the power to review questions of law involved with any final order of the commission, if application is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after the order by any method permissible under the Michigan court rules. Significantly, the WDCA sets up no substantive right to or procedural mechanism for circuit court resolution or review of legal or factual questions regarding application of the WDCA. On the contrary, as noted earlier, in MCL 418.841, the Legislature directed that [a] ny dispute or controversy concerning compensation or other benefits shall be submitted to the bureau and all questions arising under this act shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's compensation magistrate. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) Where, as here, the employment status of an injured plaintiff is in dispute, the issue is whether that dispute is one arising under the WDCA. If the dispute over employment status is not one arising under the WDCA, then MCL 418.841 does not preclude a circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over that determination. Conversely, if the dispute over employment status is a question arising under the WDCA, then a circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those initial determinations by virtue of the Legislature's direction in MCL 418.841(1) that all such questions  shall be determined by the bureau or a worker's compensation magistrate. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) The Legislature's use of the word shall in a statute indicates a mandatory and imperative directive Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 471 Mich. 745, 752, 691 N.W.2d 424 (2005). As already discussed, the criteria for determining employment status are comprehensively set forth in, and controlled by, MCL 418.161(1) of the WDCA. The question of employee status falls within the category of all questions arising under the act. Because the Legislature directed that all questions concerning the meaning and application of every provision in the WDCA are to be decided by the WCB or a magistrate, and any dispute regarding whether an injured party is an employee is necessarily one arising under the WDCA, the WCB is the designated forum to determine that question. Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13 provides that [t]he circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law . . . . (Emphasis supplied.) By virtue of MCL 418.841(1), it appears that the Legislature prohibited by law the exercise of original jurisdiction in the circuit court. Therefore, jurisdiction regarding a party's employment status rests in the first instance exclusively with the WCB or a magistrate. As noted earlier, because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court of Appeals and this Court lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review that circuit court decision.