Court Opinion

ID: 9701373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:17:25.644498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:23.058686
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Although the decision of the majority seems to be logically sound, I find that it contravenes the provisions of the statute, MCL 418.353(l)(a); MSA 17.237(353)(1)(a), as interpreted in Washburn v American Roofing Co, 52 Mich App 188, 190-191; 217 NW2d 104 (1974), lv den 392 Mich 758 (1974).1 I further note that after leave to *482appeal was denied in Washburn the Legislature did not see fit to alter the statute in any way.

 "As we read this statute, the stepchildren of the injured employee are 'dependent children’ under § 353(2). In arriving at this construction we read § 353 as a whole. The act provides special rules governing dependency in instances where the workman is injured. MCL 418.353(l)(a)(b); MSA 17.237(353)(1)(a)(b). Subsection (a)(ii) reads that dependency is conclusively presumed where 'a child’ under 16 years of age is living with his parent at the time of the injury of such parent. We hold that here the phrase 'a child’, means a person of *482immature or tender years, in this instance under 16 years of age, and the child or stepchild of the injured employee.” (Footnote omitted.)