Court Opinion

ID: 9531689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:13:55.063121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:34.043512
License: Public Domain

*743Riley, C.J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that res judicata does not preclude Jessie Askew from relitigating her changed physical condition. The majority correctly holds that Jessie Askew’s second petition for wage-loss benefits, which arose out of a changed physical condition, constituted a separate claim. However, I write separately because, although I agree with the majority’s policy considerations supporting the conclusion that res judicata does not bar relitigation of a change to a claimant’s physical condition,1 I disagree with the majority’s holding that "[n]either general res judicata doctrine nor policy requires one result in preference to the other.” Ante, pp 720-721. In my opinion, reliance upon res judicata alone would not preclude Jessie Askew from relitigating her changed physical condition. Thus, unlike the majority, I find it unnecessary to resort to public policy as a basis for resolving this case.
Therefore, I agree with the majority that a claimant may relitigate a changed physical condition which occurred after the hearing referee’s initial award, but before the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the decision of the wcab.

 However, I find it unnecessary and speculative to discuss the scope of review and authority the Legislature has given to the newly created appellate board under MCL 418.859; MSA 17.237(859).