Court Opinion

ID: 9688399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:45:39.168267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:38.123013
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
I concur in the result reached today because I do not believe that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply in this instance. Proceedings before the mesc are and should remain summary in nature. Full litigation of any one issue is neither contemplated nor encouraged. Whether or not the parties before the mesc have a full and fair opportunity to litigate all issues, United States v Utah Construction & Mining Co, 384 US 394, 422; 86 S Ct 1545; 16 L Ed 2d 642 (1966), my review of the statute as a whole *380persuades me that it was not the purpose of the Legislature to make these determinations final for all purposes. Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v Detroit, 399 Mich 449; 249 NW2d 121 (1976); Roman Cleanser Co v Murphy, 386 Mich 698; 194 NW2d 704 (1972). For this reason I agree with today’s holding that collateral estoppel does not preclude the litigation of a claim for wrongful discharge or breach of employment contract filed subsequently to an administrative disqualification for unemployment compensation benefits.1 I find it unnecessary to reach the question whether MCL 421.11(b)(1); MSA 17.511(b)(1) also precludes application of the doctrine in this instancy__

 Of course, I express no opinion on the possible evidentiary use of such information and determinations. See Sias v General Motors Corp, 372 Mich 542; 127 NW2d 357 (1964); Wojciechowski v General Motors Corp, 151 Mich App 399; 390 NW2d 727 (1986). See also Plummer v Western Int’l Hotels Co, Inc, 656 F2d 502 (CA 9, 1981).