Court Opinion

ID: 9722016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:14:38.667303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.091082
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
Although I concur in the majority’s opinion, I write separately to express my agreement with the dissent in one respect. I, too, believe that Roberts v IXL Glass Corp, 259 Mich 644; 244 NW 188 (1932), was incorrectly decided. I believe that the dissent is correct in finding that the Roberts Court’s interpretation of the jurisdictional provision of the wdca was contrary to the plain meaning of the language of the statute. I also agree that the Roberts Court erroneously determined that the definition of employee found in the act conflicted with the jurisdictional provision. However, I concur with the majority because I agree with its determination that, after fifty years of legislative acquiescence, the Roberts decision has become ensconced as part of the overall workers’ compensation scheme. I believe that the principle of stare decisis prevails over the need to correct an incorrect interpretation of the statute.
In all other respects, I agree with the majority. Accordingly, I concur with its opinion.