Court Opinion

ID: 9504665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:57:24.100594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:05.869467
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). A per curiam opinion is not an appropriate vehicle for resolving the issue in this case. Despite the wcac’s policy regarding filing requirements, this Court has found that the WCAC abused its discretion by dismissing cases due to late filing of transcripts. These were cases where the delay was not caused by the appealing party. See, e.g., Tomblin v MNP Corp, 456 Mich 871 (1997); Bright v Voss Steel Corp, 454 Mich 855 (1997). The Court of Appeals in Brooks v Engine Power Components, Inc,1 was in accord with the orders in those cases. Brooks held that the WCAC abused its discretion when it dismissed an appeal because a court reporter filed a transcript untimely.
*195In light of this precedent, it is unclear that the circumstances of the current untimely filing are insufficient to excuse the delay or the failure to request an extension. I would deny leave, allowing the matter to be resolved under Brooks, or I would grant leave to fully consider the continued viability of that decision.
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Kelly, J.

 241 Mich App 56; 613 NW2d 733 (2000).