Court Opinion

ID: 9688363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:44:43.126774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.872044
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
I concur with the result of the opinion of the Chief Justice, but write separately to say that while Hurd v Ford Motor Co, 423 Mich 531; 377 NW2d 300 (1985), adopted the date of injury as the controlling date for the application of the amendment at issue in that case, I am less sure that that date would necessarily be controlling in this case.
In Hurd, the amendment provided a new definition of personal injury. We based our decision in Hurd on the admonition that "[provisions added by the amendment that affect substantive rights will not be construed to apply to transactions and events completed prior to its enactment . . . .” 1A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed), § 22.36, pp 300-301. Hurd, supra, 535.
*400Here, the “transactions and events” to which § 373(1) applies are the employee’s termination of active employment and the receipt of nondisability pension or retirement benefits. The date on which these events are completed and the date of injury may, but need not, coincide.
Although the amendment in question was enacted and became effective prior to the determination of the wcab, the plaintiff terminated his employment prior to the amendment and therefore should not be subjected to the new standard.