Court Opinion

ID: 9691458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:33:49.288224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:14:53.915958
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(concurring). I agree that the magistrate did not make sufficient findings of fact because he did not make a finding whether there was a significant workplace aggravation of the underlying arthritic condition of the spine. I also agree that, given the absence of such findings, the record is inadequate for review and the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission is not free to make its own findings. In Goff v Bil-Mar Foods, Inc (After Remand), 454 Mich 507; 563 NW2d 214 (1997), we observed that, if the WCAC finds on review that the magistrate did not rely on competent evidence, the WCAC must detail its findings and their basis in the record.1 If the wcac properly applies this standard, “it is free to make its own findings.” Id. at 538. However, if the wcac does not base its decision on the evidence in the record as a whole and misapplies the substantial evidence standard, it exceeds its statutory authority. Requiring the wcac to carefully detail its findings of fact and the reasons for its findings grounded in the record2 is *511consistent with limited judicial review, and the Legislature’s elimination of de novo administrative review. MCL 418.861a(3); MSA 17.237(861a)(3).
Insuring the integrity of the respective roles within the agency likewise requires that the magistrate must make initial, essential, and adequate factual findings.3 Obviously, the magistrate need not discuss every aspect of the evidence, but here, as in Goff, a finding of significant aggravation is a prerequisite to review. To hold otherwise would invite the WCAC to use the absence of the magistrate’s finding as a justification for de novo conclusions.
In summary, the magistrate’s factual finding was inadequate for a qualitative and quantitative review to determine if there was substantial evidence to support the magistrate’s determination of continuing benefits. Therefore, the case must be remanded to the magistrate to make this determination.4
The statute in terms neither requires nor precludes a remand to the magistrate under the circumstances presented here. However, because the framework for review established by the Legislature is promoted by adequate fact finding by the magistrate, I join the result of the lead opinion and would vacate the decision of the wcac and remand the case to the magistrate for further proceedings as indicated.

 As noted in Goff, supra at 528, n 16, the Court of Appeals decision in York v Wayne Co Sheriffs Dep’t, 219 Mich App 370; 556 NW2d 882 (1996), illustrates the correct analysis that the courts should employ in determining whether the wcac has exceeded its authority.

 Goff, supra at 538.

 Holden v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich 257; 484 NW2d 227 (1992).

 See Haske v Transport Leasing, Inc, 455 Mich 628, 664, n 40; 566 NW2d 896 (1997). If the record is insufficient for purposes of review, the case is remanded to the magistrate rather than to the wcac in order to allow the magistrate to establish a complete record for purposes of review by the wcac.