Court Opinion

ID: 9726997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:16:38.898262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.723113
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). I agree fully with the reasoning of and conclusions reached by Chief Justice Dethmers yet find myself unable to sign his opinion for one reason, that of unnecessary reafiirmance therein of what to me are extreme constitutional test-doctrines this Court adopted in Fitzpatrick v. Liquo*646r Control Commission, 316 Mich 83 (172 ALR 608) and Metropolitan Funeral System Association v. Commissioner of Insurance, 331 Mich 185. The extended quotations from Fitzpatrick and Metropolitan which appear in the opinion of the Chief Justice are surely due, some day, for majority re-examination. That day has not as yet arrived. In the meantime I do not care to add my signature of approval to that which has been so quoted from the 2 cases.
Under such doctrine it would be quite difficult to conceive any case where this Court might conclude that challenged legislation discriminates unconstitutionally in favor of 1 or more classes against another or others. Consequently, and so far as concerns the point of unconstitutional discrimination in this case of Verberg, I confine concurrence to the eminently proper conclusion of the Chief Justice that the selection of persons suffering permanent and total disability, as defined in section 10, is a reasonable classification in that the pertinent legislative purpose was “merely to add to the special benefits accorded this particularly unfortunate group.”
I agree, on above ground, that the determination of the appeal board should be affirmed.
Voelker, J., concurred with Black, J.