Court Opinion

ID: 9739870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:22:38.922531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.399228
License: Public Domain

Hood, P.J.
(dissenting in part and concurring in part). I must respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion that finds the plaintiff was not entitled to a § 352 supplement because there was an "ongoing dispute” as to plaintiff’s right to receive the supplement. At no time did plaintiff’s employer contest plaintiff’s right to receive general benefits. Section 352(1), MCL 418.352(1); MSA 17.237(352)(1), mandates the payment of a supplement to plaintiff, "Beginning January 1, 1982, an employee receiving or entitled to receive benefits * * * shall be entitled to a supplement to weekly compensation”. (Emphasis added.) Defendants do not argue that plaintiff is not entitled to supplements under this provision. Rather, defendants argue that because there remained an ongoing dispute as to plaintiff’s entitlement to differential beneñts, the employer need not have paid the supplement. In Perry v Sturdevant Mfg Co, 124 Mich App 11, 17; 333 NW2d 366 (1983), this Court said that the penalty provision applies where the *649"ongoing dispute”, MCL 418.801(2); MSA 17.237(801)(2), involves benefits in a "different category”. Therefore, because plaintiff’s entitlement to general benefits and the supplement to those benefits was not disputed, he should have received them. Section 352(5), upon which defendants rely, does not change this result. That section merely alters the calculation of the supplemental benefit by subtracting the differential benefit amount from total benefits before calculating the supplement. Subsection (5) does not alter the fact that subsection (1) mandates the payment of a supplement in addition to plaintiff’s general benefits.
Because I find that plaintiff was entitled to the § 352(1) supplement, I address the issue of whether the § 801 penalty provision applies, MCL 418.801(2); MSA 17.237(801X2). Defendant Tryco argues that it withheld paying plaintiff the supplement benefits in good faith reliance upon a CSF directive. I would follow Perry, supra, p 19, "No good faith defense is provided; deliberate nonpayment is not required for the imposition of a penalty”. I would affirm the WCAB’s assessment of a § 801(2) penalty.
In all other respects I concur with the majority opinion.