Court Opinion

ID: 9657011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:10:48.272964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:39.571126
License: Public Domain

Marilyn Kelly, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion with regard to the public policy issue. As to all other issues, I concur.
The purpose of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act is remedial, to provide compensation to injured employees at the expense of the employers rather than the general public. 24 Michigan Law & Practice, Workman’s Compensation, § 2, pp 229-230. Public policy written into the act in 1969 was equally applicable to an agreement reached in *4431971 as it is today. That policy was that the compensation be just and proper. 1969 PA 317, §837.
Although not expressly mentioned in the statute effective at the time of these proceedings, public policy also encouraged full disclosure. In 1974, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of the referee having as much information as possible in determining whether a proposed redemption serves the purposes of the act. Farrell v Campbell Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co, 392 Mich 344, 346; 220 NW2d 450 (1974).
In 1983, the act was amended to establish guidelines for the approval of redemption agreements. Under that statute, a finding must be made that a redemption agreement is just and proper under the circumstances and is in the best interests of the injured employee. MCL 418.836(l)(a); MSA 17.237(836)(l)(a). When approving it, the referee must consider, among other factors, (1) the effect of the agreement on any other benefits to which the employee is entitled, (2) the nature and extent of the employee’s injuries, and (3) the marital status of the employee. Thus there is at present a clearly mandated public policy to insure that a redemption agreement be in the best interests of the employee, considering all relevant factors.
In this case, all pertinent information was not put on the record. Thus the referee’s decision was not based on all of the factors which should have been considered, most particularly the effect on Badon’s pension and health benefits. Public policy requiring that the agreement be just and proper was violated when the referee approved the agreement without considering all relevant factors.
General Motors and the director contend that the redemption agreement cannot be set aside on the ground of public policy where Badon had *444misrepresented the facts at the redemption hearing.
The clean hands doctrine does not preclude judgment in favor of plaintiffs. At trial, Badon explained seeming inconsistencies in testimony. Apparently some of the inconsistencies existed only because testimony had been stricken from the referee’s record. The trial judge found Badon’s explanation at trial credible. The decision was not clearly erroneous.
The circuit court’s order rescinding the redemption agreement should be affirmed.