Kurtz v. Faygo Beverages, Inc.
Citation | 466 Mich. 186,644 N.W.2d 710 |
Decision Date | 29 May 2002 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 118723. |
Parties | Thomas KURTZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAYGO BEVERAGES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Bernstein & Bernstein (by William W. Watkinson, Jr.), Southfield, MI, for the plaintiff-appellee. Charfoos, Reiter, Peterson, Jones, Dorland & Hebert, P.C. (by Myron B. Charfoos), Farmington Hills, MI, for the defendant-appellant.
In this worker's compensation case, the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission dismissed plaintiff's appeal because the transcript was not timely filed. The Court of Appeals thereafter reversed, relying on Brooks v. Engine Power Components, Inc., 241 Mich.App. 56, 613 N.W.2d 733 (2000).
We conclude that in the circumstances of this case, in which plaintiff did not timely file a request for an extension of time, the WCAC did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal. We thus reverse the Court of Appeals decision and reinstate the WCAC's dismissal of plaintiff's appeal.
Plaintiff sought worker's compensation benefits, claiming that he injured his back in the course of his employment with defendant. The magistrate granted an open award of benefits on December 19, 1995, following trial. On December 28, 1998, defendant filed a petition to stop benefits.1 After a hearing, the magistrate granted the motion in an order mailed June 14, 2000, finding that plaintiff's disability had ended by December 2, 1998. He also ordered recoupment of benefits from that date.
On July 10, 2000, plaintiff filed a timely claim for review. Under M.C.L. § 418.861a,2 the transcript was due within sixty days thereafter, or on or before September 8, 2000. After receiving the claim for review, the WCAC sent the parties a form letter regarding the appeal procedure, which included the following about transcripts and extensions:
Plaintiff failed to file the transcript by September 8, 2000, and did not request an extension of time. Therefore, on September 26, 2000, the WCAC issued an order dismissing the appeal. In its letter, the commission stated that it would "consider a timely motion for reconsideration, supported by affidavit or other evidence, showing that the reason for the tardy filing was beyond plaintiff's control." Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration explaining that he could not file the transcript on or before September 8 because the reporter did not complete the transcript until September 14, 2000.3 On October 18, 2000, the WCAC issued an order denying reconsideration, "because plaintiff failed to show good cause that the untimely filing of the transcript was the result of circumstances beyond his control."
Plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court issued a peremptory order reversing and remanding to the WCAC for consideration of plaintiff's appeal, stating that it was bound by Brooks and a series of peremptory orders of this Court.4 The Court further stated that, but for those authorities, it would affirm the WCAC on the basis that it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to timely file the transcript.
Defendant has filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court.
As we explained in Marshall v. D.J. Jacobetti Veterans Facility (After Remand), 447 Mich. 544, 548-550, 526 N.W.2d 585 (1994), the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission's practices regarding deadlines and extensions have previously been characterized as "chaotic." We noted, however, that effective January 1, 1993, the WCAC provided adequate notice of a change of practice regarding enforcement of its administrative rules and the statutory time limits. That policy stated:
Marshall involved a dismissal of an appeal because of the plaintiff's failure to timely file a brief on appeal. We reversed the dismissal because it occurred before the WCAC gave clear notice of its changed policy. We announced, however, that dismissals of appeals filed after January 1, 1993, would be evaluated in light of the new policy.
Our Marshall decision included a footnote regarding untimely filing of transcripts, a subject that we expressly declined to rule upon:
Brooks established a rule that the WCAC abuses its discretion by dismissing an appeal for failure to timely file a transcript when such failure is the fault of the court reporter and not of the party or counsel. The court reporter's failure to timely prepare the transcript, however, does not, in itself, excuse a tardy filing. The WCAC's written policies provide clear notice of the obligation to request extensions of time before the due date. As stated in the form letter sent in this case, as of January 1, 1999, court reporters no longer file transcripts directly with the WCAC, but instead provide them to counsel. Thus, attorneys representing appellants can and should know if a transcript will not be timely filed and are in a position to request an extension within the allotted time.
Of course, unusual situations may arise in which an appellant's failure to timely request an extension might be excused. Where such a claim is made, evaluation of the circumstances is entrusted to the WCAC's discretion. Appellate courts review such decisions regarding failure to comply with procedural deadlines for an abuse of discretion. Zielke v. A.J. Marshall Co., 306 Mich. 474, 477-478, 11 N.W.2d 209 (1943); Meyers v. Iron Co., 297 Mich. 629, 634-636, 298 N.W. 308 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mullins v. St. Joseph Hosp.
...(2002); Brooks v. Engine Power Components, Inc., 241 Mich.App. 56, 61-62, 613 N.W.2d 733 (2000), overruled by Kurtz v. Faygo Beverages, Inc., 466 Mich. 186, 644 N.W.2d 710 (2002); People v. Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich.App. 28, 38 n. 11, 575 N.W.2d 784 (1997); People v. Edgett, ......
-
Bennett v. Mis Corp.
...v. Engine Power Components, Inc., 241 Mich.App. 56, 613 N.W.2d 733, 735 (2000), overruled on other grounds, Kurtz v. Faygo Beverages, Inc., 466 Mich. 186, 644 N.W.2d 710, 714 (2002); People v. Phillips, 227 Mich.App. 28, 575 N.W.2d 784, 789 n. 11 (1997) (citing People v. Crall, 444 Mich. 46......
-
Fannon Co. v. Fannon Products
...v. Engine Power Components, Inc., 241 Mich.App. 56, 61, 613 N.W.2d 733 (2000) (overruled on other grounds Kurtz v. Faygo Beverages, Inc., 466 Mich. 186, 193-194, 644 N.W.2d 710 (2002),) quoting People v. Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich.App. 28, 38 n. 11, 575 N.W.2d 784 (1997). See ......
-
Franchino v. Franchino
...is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which "`involves far more than a difference in judicial opinion.'" Kurtz v. Faygo Beverages, Inc., 466 Mich. 186, 193, 644 N.W.2d 710 (2002), quoting Alken-Ziegler, Inc. v. Waterbury Headers Corp., 461 Mich. 219, 227, 600 N.W.2d 638 (1999), citing Wil......
-
Supreme Court Orders As Binding Precedent
...v Engine Power Components, Inc, 241 Mich App 56, 61; 613 NW2d 733 (2000) (same), overruled on other grounds Kurtz v Faygo Beverages, Inc, 466 Mich 186; 644 NW2d 710 10. People v Giovannini, 271 Mich App 409, 414; 722 NW2d 237 (2006) (rejecting reliance on a Supreme Court order because it co......
-
Supreme Court Orders As Binding Precedent
...v Engine Power Components, Inc, 241 Mich App 56, 61; 613 NW2d 733 (2000) (same), overruled on other grounds Kurtz v Faygo Beverages, Inc, 466 Mich 186; 644 NW2d 710 10. People v Giovannini, 271 Mich App 409, 414; 722 NW2d 237 (2006) (rejecting reliance on a Supreme Court order because it co......