Opinion ID: 2168899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: unpreserved arguments

Text: Finally, defendant makes two additional arguments that are not properly before this Court. First, it argues that a mental injury stemming from an employment action taken in response to conduct unrelated to the plaintiff's employment (i.e., plaintiff's domestic situation) cannot be an injury arising out of and in the course of employment under subsection 301(1). Second, defendant cites Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., 119 Cal.App.3d 355, 174 Cal.Rptr. 25 (1981), for the proposition that a police officer cannot transform a criminal investigation against him into a worker's compensation claim simply because he happens to work for the investigative body. Whatever the merit of these legal arguments, they were not raised before or addressed by the WCAC. [5] Accordingly, we lack the statutory authority to consider them in this appeal. Subsection 861a(14) of the WDCA 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. [Emphasis added; see also M.C.L. § 418.861; MSA 17.237(861).] The clear implication of this subsection is that this Court lacks the power to address legal questions that have not been raised before or addressed by the WCAC. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the WCAC for consideration of defendant's subsection 301(2) argument. [6] WEAVER, C.J., and MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, MARILYN J. KELLY, TAYLOR, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred with CORRIGAN, J.