Court Opinion

ID: 9677421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:51:55.674587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:55.917833
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring). In Leonard v. Lans Corporation (1967), 379 Mich 147, the undersigned in dissent wrote to hold that the amendment of section 9, part 7, of the workmen’s compensation law by PA 1962, No 189, effective March 28, 1963,1 is applicable to an occupational disease disability claim arising prior thereto. In Leonard, all proceedings before the workmen’s compensation department, including the filing of claimant’s application for hearing and adjustment of claim and his last employer’s motion for apportionment of liability between it and prior employers, were taken after March 28, 1963, the amendatory act’s effective date, and pursuant to its provisions, although claimant’s disability occurred prior to that date. In the five cases considered herein,2 however, proceedings *167before the department bad been commenced and the referee’s ‘bearing on liability concluded before the act’s effective date.' Notwithstanding the absence of statutory authority in effect at the time, our decision in Trellsite Foundry & Stamping Company v. Enterprise Foundry (1961) 365 Mich 209, having invalidated the procedure theretofore specified in section 9, part 7,3 prior employers of the claimants in Habetler, Harris, Wright, and Harrington were ordered added as parties defendant before the effective date of the amendatory act in proceedings either before the hearing referee or the appeal board. ‘ In Briggs, the referee’s award of compensation to claimant was before the appeal board for review when, in April of 1963, that board added prior employers as parties defendant. In none of the cases, however, was apportionment of liability ordered by the appeal board, it having concluded that Act 189 was not applicable to claims arising before its effective date. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, that Court affirmed for the same reasom Briggs v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Company (1966), 2 Mich App 204. We.-affirm also, .but for other reasons.
In Trellsite, we denied that a valid apportionment award could be entered in apportionment proceedings' of; which prior employ erg .were given-notice and in which they were accorded an opportunity to; participate and to contest the hearing referee’s previous award of compensation as then provided by section 9, part 7. In our decision in Trellsite, p 213, our majority expressly disavowed the contention there made upon us that a valid apportionment award may enter, even absent constitutionally valid statutory procedures therefor, when notice of the hearing on compensation before the referee has been served upon prior employers and they have participated *168therein. Considering the statutory nature of the powers exercised by the department and by its appeal board and our many decisions requiring strict compliance with statutory requirements in such proceedings, we conclude that the apportionment proceedings conducted in Habetler, Harris, Wright and Harrington before the effective date of Act 189 and without statutory authority therefor were beyond the powers of the department and its appeal board and, consequently, that no valid apportionment orders could have been entered in those cases. In Briggs, while the order adding a prior employer and its carrier as parties defendant was made following the effective date of the amendatory act, the amended provisions of the statute were not followed, the referee’s hearing already then having been concluded.' Failure to follow the statutory procedure, because the compensation hearing before the referee already had been concluded when the act became effective, is fatal to appellants’ claims.
Affirmed. Costs may be taxed.
Dethmers, C. J., and O’Hara, J., concurred with S.ouris, J.
Brennan, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

 Amending CL 1948, § 417.9 (Stat Ann 1963 Cum Supp § 17.228). See, currently, CL 1948, § 417.9, as amended by PA 1965, No 44 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 17.228).

 Four of the eases (Briggs, Habetler, Harris, and Wright v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Company, Division of Textron American, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., Inc., and Michigan Mutual Liability Company) were consolidated on appeal to the Court of Appeals and the fifth (Harrington v. Gale Manufacturing Company, Brooks Foundry Company and Michigan State Accident Fund) was submitted with them for decision by the Court of Appeals. That court held that Act 189 was not applicable to claims arising prior to its effective date. Briggs v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Company (1966), 2 Mich App 204, We granted leave to appeal to this Court.

 CL 1948, §417.9 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.228).