Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Ent. Inc., Docket No. 137500.

• Decision Date: 22 October 2010
• Docket Number: Docket No. 137500.
• Citation: 487 Mich. 455,795 N.W.2d 797
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Andre BEZEAU, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.PALACE SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant–Appellee.

487 Mich. 455

795 N.W.2d 797

Andre BEZEAU, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.PALACE SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant–Appellee.

Docket No. 137500.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 31, 2010.Order Denying Rehearing Oct. 22, 2010.

Law Offices of Peter B. Bundarin PLLC (by Peter B. Bundarin) and John A. Braden, for plaintiff.

Conklin Benham, P.C. (by Martin L. Critchell and Walter F. Noeske), for defendant.Daryl Royal and Adler Stillman, PLLC (by Barry D. Adler), for Amicus Curiae Michigan Association for Justice.

Opinion

WEAVER, J.

In this case, we decide whether this Court correctly gave retroactive effect to its decision in Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co., 478 Mich. 28, 732 N.W.2d 56 (2007). After examination of the Karaczewski decision and the effect overruling its retroactivity would have, we overrule the holding of Karaczewski that gave the decision its retroactive effect. Accordingly, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) and remand this case to the WCAC for resolution of this case consistent with the law in effect before the Karaczewski decision.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1998, plaintiff Andre Bezeau, a professional hockey player, signed a three-year contract with the Detroit Vipers, a professional hockey team owned by defendant Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc. At the time, plaintiff was a resident of Michigan, and the contract was signed in Michigan.

In June 2000, plaintiff fell from a 45–foot ladder while working at his father's roofing company in New Brunswick, Canada. As a result of the fall, he injured his groin, lower back, and right thigh. Plaintiff stayed in New Brunswick to receive treatment for his injuries, and he became a resident of New Brunswick.

In October 2000, the Detroit Vipers loaned plaintiff to the Providence Bruins, a professional hockey team located in Rhode Island. In the first game of the 2000–2001 season, which took place in Rhode Island, another player struck plaintiff, aggravating his injury. Plaintiff left the game and has been unable to play hockey since the incident.

In June 2001, plaintiff applied for workers' compensation benefits in Michigan. He claimed that he had developed osteitis pubis as a result of playing professional hockey. A hearing was held before a magistrate in the Worker's Compensation Board of Magistrates. The magistrate ruled in February 2003 that although plaintiff was disabled, there was no persuasive evidence that the incident at the October 2000 hockey game in Rhode Island caused plaintiff's disabling injuries or aggravated any preexisting injuries.

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the WCAC, which reversed the magistrate's findings. The WCAC panel found that the incident at the October 2000 hockey game was a contributing factor, among many, to plaintiff's disability. The WCAC granted plaintiff an open award of benefits.

Defendant appealed the WCAC's decision in the Court of Appeals. In February 2006, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion vacating the decision of the WCAC and remanding the case to the WCAC to “determine whether plaintiff asserted an ‘aggravation’ or ‘contribution’ theory at trial, whether such a theory was properly raised on appeal, and, if so, whether an award of benefits is proper under Rakestraw

[ v. Gen. Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., 469 Mich. 220, 666 N.W.2d 199 (2003)]

.”

Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 28, 2006 (Docket No. 258350), p. 5, 2006 WL 473802.

On remand from the Court of Appeals, the WCAC issued a decision in October 2006 remanding the case to the board of magistrates to determine whether plaintiff's condition after the October 2000 hockey-game incident was medically distinguishable from his condition before the incident.

Meanwhile in May 2007, while the remand to the board of magistrates in the instant case was pending, this Court issued the opinion in Karaczewski on the jurisdictional requirements for workers' compensation claims brought in Michigan. In Karaczewski, this Court overruled the interpretation of MCL 418.845 set forth in Boyd v. W.G. Wade Shows, 443 Mich. 515, 505 N.W.2d 544 (1993), and described what it termed an abrogation of the statute by Boyd's precursor, Roberts v. IXL Glass Corp., 259 Mich. 644, 244 N.W. 188 (1932). Karaczewski, 478 Mich. at 30, 39–41, 732 N.W.2d 56. The new interpretation of MCL 418.845 set forth in Karaczewski stated that for Michigan workers' compensation laws to apply to a claim for benefits, the injured employee must have been a resident of Michigan at the time of the injury and the contract for hire must have been made in Michigan.¹ Id. at 33, 44, 732 N.W.2d 56. Under Boyd and Roberts, Michigan workers' compensation laws applied to claims for benefits even if the injured employee was not a resident of Michigan as long as the contract for hire was made in Michigan. See id. at 34, 37–38, 732 N.W.2d 56.

As a result of the Karaczewski decision, defendant argued that the board of magistrates did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff was a resident of New Brunswick at the time of the October 2000 incident. The magistrate agreed and dismissed plaintiff's claim for benefits. Plaintiff appealed to the WCAC, which affirmed the magistrate's decision. Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which denied leave to appeal in an unpublished order entered September 5, 2008 (Docket No. 285593).

Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We ordered oral argument on the application, directing the parties to address “whether the jurisdictional standard established at MCL 418.845, as interpreted by this Court in Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co., 478 Mich. 28, 732 N.W.2d 56 (2007), should be applied in this case.” ²

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether this Court's decision in a previous case should be overruled is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Bush v. Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156, 164, 772 N.W.2d 272 (2009).

III. ANALYSIS

A. THE DECISION IN KARACZEWSKI

Karaczewski involved an employee whose contract for hire was made in Michigan, but who became a resident of another state after his employer transferred him. The employee was injured on the job while in the other state. Karaczewski, 478 Mich. at 30, 732 N.W.2d 56. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in Michigan. Id. at 31, 732 N.W.2d 56.

The defendants in Karaczewski argued that under the plain language of the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act, the employee's claim was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Michigan's Workers' Compensation Agency because the employee was not a resident of Michigan at the time of the injury. Id. at 58, 732 N.W.2d 56. The WCAC and Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants that the plain language of the relevant statute, MCL 418.845, would preclude the employee from bringing his claim in Michigan. Id. at 31–32, 732 N.W.2d 56. However, both the WCAC and the Court of Appeals noted that they were unable to rule in the defendants' favor under the binding Michigan Supreme Court precedents of Boyd and Roberts. Id. at 32, 732 N.W.2d 56.

In Boyd, this Court interpreted MCL 418.845 when faced with a similar situation involving an employee whose contract for hire was made in Michigan but who was injured and died on the job while a resident of another state. Boyd, 443 Mich. at 516, 505 N.W.2d 544. The Court examined MCL 418.845 and Roberts, a case interpreting a predecessor of MCL 418.845. Id. at 517–520, 505 N.W.2d 544. The Boyd Court held that, “pursuant to [MCL 418.845] and Roberts v. IXL Glass Corp, supra, the Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation shall have jurisdiction over extraterritorial injuries without regard to the employee's residence, provided the contract of employment was entered into in this state with a resident employer.” Id. at 526, 505 N.W.2d 544.

This Court granted leave in Karaczewski to determine whether overruling Boyd would be justified.³ Analyzing the plain language of MCL 418.845, a majority of this Court held that the statute “confers jurisdiction on the Bureau of Worker's Compensation, now the Workers' Compensation Agency, for out-of-state workplace injuries only if (1) the employee is a resident of Michigan when the injury occurs and (2) the contract of hire was made in Michigan.” Karaczewski, 478 Mich. at 30, 732 N.W.2d 56. The Karaczewski Court's interpretation of MCL 418.845 directly conflicted with this Court's interpretation of the same statute in Boyd, and thus this Court overruled Boyd. Id. Over the objections of three justices, the majority in Karaczewski gave retroactive effect to its new interpretation of MCL 418.845. Karaczewski, Id. at 44 n. 15, 732 N.W.2d 56.

In general, this Court's decisions are given full retroactive effect. Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 465 Mich. 675, 695, 641 N.W.2d 219 (2002). However, there are exceptions to this rule. This Court should adopt a more flexible approach if injustice would result from full retroactivity. Id. at 696, 641 N.W.2d 219. Prospective application may be appropriate where the holding overrules settled precedent. Id. As stated in Pohutski:

This Court adopted from Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), three factors to be weighed in determining when a decision should not have retroactive application. Those factors are: (1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice. People v. Hampton, 384 Mich. 669, 674, 187 N.W.2d 404 (1971). In the civil context, a plurality of this Court noted that Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106–107, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), recognized an additional threshold question whether the decision clearly established a new...