Opinion ID: 848615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Szydlowski's Approach

Text: This Court's opinion in Szydlowski provides the more textually faithful approach to determining jurisdiction when the WDCA is implicated. Contrary to Sewell, the jurisdictional inquiry in the first instance should be referred to the WCB upon petition by either party in a court action. In addition to being more textually faithful to the WDCA, this approach would avoid lengthy, duplicative litigation by providing a definite jurisdictional starting point. Consider this case: for seven years, the circuit court, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court have grappled with defining and applying the WDCA's terms of art to the facts of this case. The forum legislatively charged with determining all questions arising under the WDCA is the WCB, not the courts. That forum is where this class of cases belongs. I agree that this Court should not lightly overrule precedent. [15] As this Court discussed recently in People v. Davis, 472 Mich. 156, 168 n. 19, 695 N.W.2d 45 (2005), the doctrine of stare decisis is not applied mechanically to prevent the Court from overruling previous decisions that are erroneous. We may overrule a prior decision when we are certain that it was wrongly decided and `less injury will result from overruling than from following it.' People v. Moore, 470 Mich. 56, 69 n. 17, 679 N.W.2d 41 (2004), quoting McEvoy v. Sault Ste Marie, 136 Mich. 172, 178, 98 N.W. 1006 (1904). Sewell 's shared jurisdiction approach is not at all faithful to the plain text of the WDCA. The doctrine of stare decisis should not prevail over a legislative directive. As I noted in Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 472-473, 613 N.W.2d 307 (2000): I agree that too rapid change in the law threatens judicial legitimacy, as it threatens the stability of any institution. But the act of correcting past rulings that usurp power properly belonging to the legislative branch does not threaten legitimacy. Rather, it restores legitimacy. Simply put, our duty to act within our constitutional grant of authority is paramount. If a prior decision of this Court reflects an abuse of judicial power at the expense of legislative authority, a failure to recognize and correct that excess, even if done in the name of stare decisis, would perpetuate an unacceptable abuse of judicial power. [Corrigan, J., concurring.]