Court Opinion

ID: 9855661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:29:01.083879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:18.933714
License: Public Domain

Blair Moody, Jr., J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I concur in general with the reasoning in the opinion written by Justice Williams and therefore have affixed my signature. The following explains additional reasons for my decision.
To overrule a decade of established precedent and practice requires this Court to judicially erase a clear legislative command, to avoid segments of legislative history, and to usurp the legislative function.
In an attempt to succinctly recapitulate the salient features of the statutory provisions applica*314ble to this case, it is noted that § 351(1) requires payment to a totally incapacitated employee of "not more than * * * $75.00 if 2 dependents; * * * except as provided in section 355 * * * not less than * * * $33.00 if 2 dependents; * * * except as provided in section 355.” Thus, the plain language of the statute subjected both ceiling and base classifications to the adjustment provisions of §355.
At the time of the plaintiiFs injury § 355 provided: "(1) The maximum weekly rate in each dependency classification in this act shall be adjusted once each year in accordance with the increase or decrease in the average weekly wage.” This provision also asserted: "(3) Adjustment for the statutory maximum rate shall be made only if there has been an increase or decrease in the average weekly wage of at least $1.50 during the preceding year.” Section 355 referred to "maximum rates” and "maximum weekly rate” in two other sentences.
A
Several arguments are advanced to support the position of the defendants that no adjustment to the minimum rates prescribed in § 351 is authorized pursuant to § 355 because none was intended by the Legislature.
It is first urged that since the plain language of § 355 makes no specific reference to minimum rates, it would be unreasonable to conclude that "maximum rates” refers to anything more than ceiling rates established in § 351 to which § 355 is cross-referenced. Accordingly, it is posited that the cross-reference in § 351 following the base or minimum classifications is surplusage.
*315This very point was addressed by the WCAB in Jolliff v American Advertising Distributors, Inc, 49 Mich App 1; 211 NW2d 260 (1973), lv den 391 Mich 780 (1974). In that case, the board unanimously reasoned:
"Sec. 9 of Part II as it was known in 1965, and which is now known as § 355 ([MCL] 418.355) provides: 'The maximum weekly rate in each dependency classiñcation in this act shall be adjusted * * (Emphasis supplied.) I submit that the word maximum as used in this section refers to the top amount which is payable in each dependency classification within the act, and is not to be construed just to refer to the maximum rate which is payable when the employee’s weekly wage may exceed the state’s average weekly wage so that the maximum which he receives is the top amount payable each week under the act. If there be those who would disagree, I refer such skeptics to the plain language of § 9, Part II which at the time of the employee’s injury in 1970 provided * * *.” 1972 WCABO 575, 579.
Given the statutory language, the WCAB analysis is a reasonable interpretation of legislative intent. Clearly all 12 of the statutory rates of payment of compensation provided in § 351, which include both ceiling and base categories, constitute dependency classifications. Certainly the Legislature must have intended some purpose for the cross-reference clause which follows the "minimum” classifications listed in § 351. To judicially discard this cross-reference phrase would also necessitate an absolute avoidance of the explanatory clause in the very first sentence in § 355.
Both clauses were inserted and approved by the Legislature. When read together, the two provisions blend together to mean that the adjustments in § 355 would apply to all dependency classifications listed in § 351. The plain language of these *316two sections, including all phrases and cross-references, strongly suggests a legislative command that should not be judicially erased. This is particularly true when the humanitarian and remedial aims of the act are promoted.
B
It is claimed that the legislative history of these provisions reveals an error in the drafting of the statute. The original version of what is now § 355 was first introduced into the legislative tableau by 1965 PA 44, MCL 412.9(a); MSA 17.159(a). This act expressly provided upward adjustments for ceiling classification rates from September 1, 1965 to January 1, 1969. There were no specific adjustments made to the base classification rates covering this period.
However, both the ceiling and base rate classifications were subjected to the provisions of subsection (f), the antecedent of § 355. Under the provisions of the act, subsection (f) would become operative commencing January, 1969. It is urged that since the Legislature failed to make provision for adjusting the base classifications from September 1965 to January 1969, there was no intention, irrespective of the specific legislative mandate, to apply the automatic adjustment provision of subsection (f) to the minimum categories after January, 1969.
Reaching back further into legislative history, however, illuminates a different view. Prior to 1949, disability compensation payments were established at two-thirds of the average weekly wage. Payments could not exceed $21 nor fall below $10 per week. Pursuant to 1949 PA 238, dependency classifications were introduced and *317both ceiling and base rates were raised. For instance, an employee with no dependents could be paid no more than $24 nor less than $11 per week, slight increases over the prior statutory maximum and minimum rates. In addition, specific amounts were established on a steadily increasing progression in all dependency classifications.
This pattern was maintained by 1952 PA 263. Upward adjustments in each dependency classification, including ceiling and base categories, were specifically enacted. As an example, an employee with no dependents could be paid not more than $28 nor less than $14. The Legislature apparently was reacting to the then-gradual increase in the average weekly wage of Michigan workers with accompanying inflation and accommodated the economic progression by a specific act that raised to some extent both the benefit ceiling and floor.
Following the same mold, 1954 PA 175 provided for additional increased payments in all dependency classifications. In 1956, the Legislature altered the pattern. Under 1956 PA 195 increases were extended to the ceiling rates, whereas base dependency classification rates were unchanged.
It was not until 1965 when, pursuant to 1965 PA 44, the Legislature once again increased all dependency classification payments. Apparently a need to increase minimum as well as maximum benefits was again recognized. Weekly payments for ceiling rates with no dependents were raised to not more than $58 as of September 1, 1965, nor less than $27. As previously related, the ceiling payments were adjusted upward from September 1, 1965 seriatim to January 1, 1969. The recently raised base rate remained steady until January 1, 1969. At that point, the provisions of subsection (f), the antecedent of § 355, pursuant to the plain lan*318guage of the act would automatically adjust both the ceiling and base rates.
Viewing a full recount of legislative history and in the face of a specific legislative command, one cannot readily conclude that the Legislature did not intend § 355 to apply to the base dependency classifications set forth in § 351. At one time the differential amount between the ceiling and the base payment was absolutely constant. There is a background of consistent increases to both ceiling and base classification payments on almost every legislative occasion. Furthermore, payment rates were consistently subject to legislative alteration to reflect necessary changes due to economic conditions.
There is also another noteworthy feature to legislative history. It is doubtful that the Legislature, in 1965, could anticipate what would be enacted in 1969. In the 1965 act, the Legislature utilized language to allow for automatic adjustments that would carry beyond 1969. In 1969, the Legislature revised the act and specifically retained the cross-reference clause in § 351 which applied to minimum rates. The Legislature endorsed its prior 1965 enactment.
If one were to accept as arguable the proposition that the Legislature in 1965 mistakenly applied subsection (f) to the base classification, it becomes doubly difficult to accept when the Legislature again applied the cross-reference clause to all classifications in the 1969 act. Section 355 having been applied twice to both categories of classification in § 351 lends strength to what was the intent of the Legislature.
C
Inconsistencies within the act lend little assis*319tance to ascertaining legislative intent. It is urged that comparing § 351 with the death benefit provision of MCL 418.321; MSA 17.237(321) indicates there is no plausible reason why the Legislature would intend to adjust the minimum rate upward in disability classifications, while not doing so for surviving dependents of an employee killed during the course of employment. However, the Legislature may have had a reason for treating death cases differently than cases involving a disabled worker. Furthermore, it is just as plausible to suggest that the Legislature made a mistake by leaving out of § 321 a cross-reference clause to §355.
Also, it is argued that an adjustment of minimum compensation rates for disabled employees would impair the effectiveness of MCL 418.357; MSA 17.237(357), which requires an annual 5% reduction in benefits each year after the age of 65 for a period of 10 years to a minimum of 50% of the benefits paid at age 65. It is claimed that to adjust minimum rates upwards under § 355 would make the 50% reduction impossible to effect.
However, § 357 specifically provides in pertinent part:
"Weekly payments shall not be reduced below the minimum weekly benefit as provided in this act.”
It may therefore be discerned that the Legislature compassionately recognized the potentially serious impact that cost of living increases have on the elderly. The reduction down to 50% of the benefits paid at age 65 was to be tempered so that in no event would the benefits fall below the adjusted minimum weekly benefits under § 355.
*320D
Finally, it is urged that, in view of arguably inequitable results, it is likely that the Legislature did not intend to apply increasing adjustments to minimum classification benefits. In one regard this assertion would be answered by raising unfair hypothetical results had the base rates remained at the same level over the years.
More succinctly, this assertion was anticipated and answered nearly a decade ago by WCAB member Michael Gillman. In his separate concurrence with the unanimous Jolliff decision, Gillman stated:
"The impact of this decision is not simply to increase plaintiff’s weekly compensation 67 cents (from $37.33 to $38), but to impose upon the insurers and self-insureds of this state a new compensation liability not previously considered — annually increasing minimums as well as máximums.
"There are practical problems and inequities that spring immediately to mind for service industry employers and others who hire part-time help.
"Seeing these, it will be easy to criticize the decision of this board as producing an inequitable result. Let us here submit that it is not this board’s decision but the act as amended in 1965 that establishes the law before us. Section 9, Part II ([§] 351) specifically makes separate provision for increase in máximums and in the .minimum dependency classifications. This writer is satisfied that such was the intent of that Legislature and would refer those who quarrel with such finding to the makers of the law.” 1972 WCABO 582.
It is for the Legislature to change its prior specific statutory commands in the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. This has been done. In 1980, by 1980 PÁ 357, the Legislature, reacting to a battered Michigan economy, once again revised § 351 and § 355 to be effective January 1, 1982.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals.