Court Opinion

ID: 9693441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:41:25.889186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:46.680893
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. At the time of the board’s decision, MCL 418.801(2); MSA 17.237(801X2) provided:
"If weekly compensation benefits, accrued weekly benefits, medical bills, or travel allowance are not paid within 30 days after becoming due and payable in cases where there is no ongoing dispute, $50.00 per day shall be added and paid to the worker for each day over 30 days in which the compensation, medical bills, or travel allowance are not paid. Not more than $1,500.00 in total may be added pursuant to this subsection.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Charpentier v Canteen Corp, 105 Mich App 700; 307 NW2d 704 (1981), lv den 412 Mich 887 (1981), a panel of this Court held that the 30-day grace period provided in § 801(2) commences only when the following two conditions are met: (1) the benefits must be due and payable; and (2) there must be no ongoing dispute. Writing for a unanimous Court, I stated in Charpentier:
"An award is to be considered in dispute while review *22or appeal is pending and during the time periods permitted for filing a claim for review or of appeal.” Charpentier, supra, p 705.
See, also, Clark v General Motors Corp, Chevrolet Assembly Plant, 117 Mich App 387; 323 NW2d 714 (1982).
In my opinion the Legislature, by limiting § 801(2) to "cases where there is no ongoing dispute”, did not intend the penalty to be imposed against an employer or carrier who fails to comply with the provisions of MCL 418.862; MSA 17.237(862). The pendency of an appeal constitutes an ongoing dispute within the meaning of § 801(2). The claimant’s remedy against an employer or carrier who fails to pay the 70% benefits required by § 862 is dismissal of the claim for review or the appeal. McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419, 461; 258 NW2d 414 (1977).
I am in agreement with the interpretation given §§ 801(2) and 862 by the board in Perini v Chrysler Corp, 1980 WCABO 1198, quoted by the majority. I would affirm the board’s decision.