Brewer v. A.D. Transp. Express Inc

• Decision Date: 10 May 2010
• Docket Number: Docket No. 139068.
• Citation: 782 N.W.2d 475,486 Mich. 50
• Parties: Anthony J. BREWER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.A.D. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

486 Mich. 50
782 N.W.2d 475

Anthony J. BREWER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
A.D. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 139068.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 10, 2010.

782 N.W.2d 476

Daryl Royal, Dearborn, and Richard L. Warsh, Southfield, for Anthony J. Brewer.

Lacey & Jones (by Gerald M. Marcinkoski), Birmingham, for A. D. Transport Express, Inc., and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America.

Charles W. Palmer, Wyandotte, amicus curiae for the Michigan Association for Justice.OpinionCORRIGAN, J.

This case requires us to consider whether a recent expansion of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Agency over out-of-state injuries, MCL 418.845, as amended by 2008 PA 499, applies retroactively to cases in which the claimant was injured before the effective date of the amendment. We hold that the amendment does not apply because the statutory text does not manifest a legislative intent to apply the amendment to antecedent injuries. Moreover, the amendment does not fall within an exception for remedial or procedural amendments that may apply retroactively; rather, it created an important new legal burden and potentially enlarged existing substantive rights. We thus affirm the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) upholding the magistrate's dismissal of plaintiff's petition for lack of jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Plaintiff Anthony J. Brewer, a Michigan resident, sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury he allegedly suffered in Ohio in 2003 while working for defendant A.D. Transport Express, Inc., as a truck driver. Defendant denied that plaintiff's contract of hire was made in Michigan, a necessary condition for the Workers' Compensation Agency to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's out-of-state injury under the jurisdictional standard in effect when plaintiff was injured, MCL 418.845, as enacted by 1969 PA 317. Despite acknowledging that whether the contract of hire was made in Michigan was at

782 N.W.2d 477

issue, plaintiff's counsel failed to present any direct proof regarding where and how plaintiff was hired.

Defendant's trucking company is headquartered in Canton, Michigan, but it has satellite offices in Kentucky and New Jersey and provides transportation services nationwide. Plaintiff's payroll and employment records showed the Canton office address, but the magistrate found that these facts did not satisfy plaintiff's burden of proof to establish jurisdiction. The record contained no evidence of what contact, if any, plaintiff had with the Canton office during the hiring process. Moreover, plaintiff's employment required him to drive to destinations in both Michigan and Ohio. The magistrate thus concluded that speculation would be required to find that the contract of hire was made in Michigan and dismissed plaintiff's petition.

The WCAC affirmed, finding no facts that would allow the magistrate to conclude that the contract of hire was made in Michigan. It noted plaintiff's failure to present evidence of the circumstances or location of his hiring.

The Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's application for leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented.¹

Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We directed the clerk to schedule oral argument on the application and directed the parties to “address whether the legislative change to MCL 418.845, 2008 PA 499, should be applied to this case.” ²

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether the amendment of MCL 418.845 enacted by 2008 PA 499 applies retroactively is a question of law that we review de novo. Frank W Lynch & Co. v. Flex Technologies, Inc., 463 Mich. 578, 583, 624 N.W.2d 180 (2001).³

III. ANALYSIS

At the time of plaintiff's injury, MCL 418.845 provided:

The bureau [now the Workers' Compensation Agency] shall have jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of

injuries suffered outside this state where the injured employee is a resident of this state at the time of injury and the contract of hire was made in this state. Such employee or his dependents shall be entitled to the compensation and other benefits provided by this act. [Emphasis added.]

We discussed the history of this jurisdictional provision in Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co., 478 Mich. 28, 33-38, 732 N.W.2d 56 (2007). The essential point is that beginning with the first enactment of a provision in 1921, the text of MCL 418.845 and its predecessors had, until the enactment of 2008 PA 499, always provided jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries if (1) the injured employee resided in this state at the time of injury and (2) the contract of hire was made in Michigan. In Boyd v. W.G. Wade Shows, 443 Mich. 515, 505 N.W.2d 544 (1993), however, a majority of this Court declined to enforce the residency requirement on the basis of its view that the requirement had not been

782 N.W.2d 478

enforced since its rejection by Roberts v. I. X. L. Glass Corp., 259 Mich. 644, 244 N.W. 188 (1932).⁴ The Boyd Court viewed the residency requirement as “not only undesirable but also unduly restrictive.” Boyd, 443 Mich. at 524, 505 N.W.2d 544.

In Karaczewski, the majority opinion overruled Boyd and held that MCL 418.845 must be applied as written. The majority explained that the Legislature's use of the conjunctive term “and” required that both jurisdictional requirements be met. Karaczewski, 478 Mich. at 33, 732 N.W.2d 56. Nonetheless, in order to protect the reliance interests of plaintiffs who had received or were receiving benefits as part of a final judgment,...