Lesner v. Liquid Disposal, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 May 2002
• Docket Number: Docket No. 116205, Calendar No. 5.
• Citation: 466 Mich. 95,643 N.W.2d 553
• Parties: Robert C. LESNER, Father of Randy Lee Lesner, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIQUID DISPOSAL, INC., and Hartford Accident and Indemnity, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

643 N.W.2d 553

466 Mich. 95

Robert C. LESNER, Father of Randy Lee Lesner, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIQUID DISPOSAL, INC., and Hartford Accident and Indemnity, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 116205, Calendar No. 5.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued November 7, 2001.

Decided May 7, 2002.

John W. Simpson, Jr., Bloomfield Hills, MI, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Marsha M. Woods, Troy, MI, for the defendants-appellants.

Opinion

YOUNG, J.

The plaintiff's son was fatally injured in the course of employment. Plaintiff, a partial dependent of the decedent, sought worker's compensation benefits. Through extended proceedings, there has been uncertainty with regard to the proper amount of the benefits to be paid to plaintiff under the formula established by this Court in Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 448 Mich. 679, 533 N.W.2d 287 (1995).

We hold that the formula for calculating worker's compensation death benefits for surviving partial dependents established in Weems is inconsistent with the governing statute, M.C.L. § 418.321. Accordingly, we overrule that portion of the Weems opinion. However, the portion of this opinion that overrules Weems is to have limited retroactive effect.

We further hold that Weems correctly held that the minimum and maximum limits in M.C.L. § 418.355(2) and M.C.L. § 418.356(2) do not require an alteration after the partial dependent benefits calculation. In addition, we hold that the 500-week limitation on benefits applies to benefits for a partially dependent person.

Set forth in this opinion is the proper method for determining partial dependent benefits in keeping with the controlling statutory language. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Facts and Proceedings

In January 1982, plaintiff lived with his wife and two adult sons. All four individuals made financial contributions to the household as plaintiff drew a small pension and the others earned money from employment. Plaintiff, then 57 years old and disabled from employment since 1978, was partially dependent on the contributions of his sons and wife. One of the plaintiff's sons died as the result of a work-related accident in mid-January 1982.

The following month, plaintiff, as a survivor and partial dependent of the deceased son, sought benefits pursuant to § 321 of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, M.C.L. § 418.321. A hearing referee found that plaintiff was a partial dependent, and ordered a weekly benefit of $170.21 until further order of the bureau.

After both sides appealed to the former Worker's Compensation Appeal Board, a two-member panel affirmed the referee's decision, with some modification.¹

The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal² and affirmed in part and reversed in part.³

While defendants' application for leave to appeal was pending in this Court, we decided Weems, supra, which provided a formula for calculating benefits for a partial dependent. Then, in lieu of granting leave to appeal in the present case, we directed the WCAC to recalculate death benefits using the formula set forth in Weems. 449 Mich. 901, 536 N.W.2d 778 (1995).

On remand, the WCAC once again recalculated the benefit amount. A further recalculation occurred when the case returned to the Court of Appeals.⁴

We granted leave to appeal in order to clarify this area of the law and consider whether the formula for the calculation of worker's compensation death benefits for surviving partial dependents established in Weems is consistent with the governing statute, M.C.L. § 418.321.

II. Standard of Review

This case presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo as a question of law. Levy v. Martin, 463 Mich. 478, 482, n. 12, 620 N.W.2d 292 (2001); Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co., 460 Mich. 243, 248, 596 N.W.2d 574 (1999).

III. Analysis

A. The Statute at Issue

Death benefits for a dependent are governed by M.C.L. § 418.321. In 1982, when the plaintiff's decedent died, the language for this section, drawn from 1980 PA 357, read:

If death results from the personal injury of an employee, the employer shall pay, or cause to be paid, subject to [MCL 418.375], in 1 of the methods provided in this section, to the dependents of the employee who were wholly dependent upon the employee's earnings for support at the time of the injury, a weekly payment equal to 80% of the employee's after-tax average weekly wage, subject to the maximum and minimum rates of compensation under this act, for a period of 500 weeks from the date of death. If at the expiration of the 500-week period any such wholly or partially dependent person is less than 21 years of age, a hearing referee may order the employer to continue to pay the weekly compensation or some portion thereof until the wholly or partially dependent person reaches the age of 21. If the employee leaves dependents only partially dependent upon his or her earnings for support at the time of injury, the weekly compensation to be paid shall be equal to the same proportion of the weekly payments for the benefit of persons wholly dependent as the amount contributed by the employee to such partial dependents bears to the annual earnings of the deceased at the time of injury.

Later, the section was amended by 1985 PA 103 and 1994 PA 271. One significant change was made to the final sentence of the section to provide an eighty-percent multiplier in the formula for the calculation of benefits.⁵

B. The Weems Formula is Inconsistent with the Formula Provided by the Plain Language of the Statute

As we have indicated with great frequency, our duty is to apply the language of the statute as enacted, without addition, subtraction, or modification. See, e.g., Helder v. Sruba, 462 Mich. 92, 99, 611 N.W.2d 309 (2000); Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 459, 613 N.W.2d 307 (2000). We may not read anything into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself. Omne Financial, Inc. v. Shacks, Inc., 460 Mich. 305, 311, 596 N.W.2d 591 (1999). In other words, the role of the judiciary is not to engage in legislation. Tyler v. Livonia Public Schools, 459 Mich. 382, 392-393, n. 10, 590 N.W.2d 560 (1999).

Interpreting the plain language of M.C.L. § 418.321 at the time of the work related death of the plaintiff's son in 1982, that statute provided that the weekly benefit to be paid to a partially dependent person (BPD) was calculated by multiplying the benefit that would be paid if the person were wholly dependent (BWD) by a percentage figure ("the proportion"). The benefit for a wholly dependent person (BWD) was eighty percent of the decedent's after-tax average weekly wage (WWAT).⁶ The proportion (P) was calculated by dividing the amount the decedent contributed to the partial dependent (C)⁷ by the decedent's annual earnings (AE). Thus:

BPD = (Bwd)(P), where P = (C/AE), and Bwd = (.80)(WWAT). Accordingly BPD = (C)(.80)(WWAT)/(AE), or Benefit = (decedent's contribution)(.80)(decedent's weekly wage after taxes) (decedent's annual earnings)

This equation is the proper one; it is directly based on the plain language of M.C.L. § 418.321 as it was in force in 1982.⁸

In our view, the statute on its face requires a factual determination of "the amount contributed by the employee" to the partial dependent, that is, the amount actually contributed by that deceased worker, in order to calculate the amount of benefits to which the partial dependent is entitled.

However, in Weems, supra at 695-697, 533 N.W.2d 287, this Court created its own formula for determining benefits payable to a partial dependent under M.C.L. § 418.321, despite the plain language of the statute.⁹ Rather than merely examining, as the statute directed, "the amount contributed by the employee" to the partial dependent, the Weems Court substituted other factors to determine the level of benefits. In particular, it concluded that the partial dependent would receive the amount obtained by dividing the deceased employee's annual after-tax earnings by the sum of those earnings and the partial dependent's regular and substantial annual income.¹⁰ See Weems, supra at 696, 533 N.W.2d 287. The problem with this calculation is that it is not derived from the language of the statute. MCL 418.321 includes no mention of the income of a partial dependent as a factor in the calculation of the benefits due that partial dependent.¹¹

As explained by Justice CAVANAGH in his partial dissent in Weems, in order to determine the benefits due a partial dependent, a faithful application of M.C.L. § 418.321 "would require a factual determination by the trier of fact" to establish the amount contributed by the employee to the partial dependent. Id. at 709, 533 N.W.2d 287. We agree. This is necessary for the simple reason that the amount contributed by the deceased employee to the partial dependent will vary from case to case and cannot be determined by any blanket formula.

The Weems majority rejected such a factual inquiry, apparently primarily on the basis of the view that such a factual determination would be "unworkable":

Such a determination is absolutely unworkable in practice. It would be impossible in most cases to even roughly estimate which portion of the decedent's income was used for the sole support of the dependent. [Weems, supra at 698, 533 N.W.2d 287.]

We acknowledge that, in many cases, the factfinder will be presented with a difficult task in determining what amount of money to consider as having been contributed by the deceased employee to the partial dependent. In large part, this is because household expenses are often paid in essentially a lump sum for items that benefit multiple members of the household.¹² Yet the difficulty of an administrative tribunal in making a factual determination called for by a statute is not a...