Court Opinion

ID: 9703935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:13:26.831966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:53.073750
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). It is with extreme reluctance that I concur in the result reached by Judge Walsh.
I do so separately because I want to record my previously expressed concern over the state of the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Act. See the concurring opinion in Brady v Ford Motor Co, 62 Mich App 520; 233 NW2d 631 (1975).
There is no reason in law or logic why plaintiff, who manifestly has lost the industrial use of both legs, should be treated differently from those in the same condition but not as a result of silicosis, except that the Legislature, intentionally or not, said he must. When the Legislature leaves in a statute the clear, unequivocal language found in the silicosis section that " * * *. notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, * * * In no event shall such compensation exceed an aggregate total of $10,500.00,: * * * ’’,1 a court cannot very well judicially legislate it out.
Judge Walsh properly applied the rule of the specific over the general in statutory construction and I am duty bound to concur.

 MCLA 417.4: MSA 17.223.