Winters v. Dalton

• Decision Date: 20 September 1994
• Docket Number: Docket No. 151334
• Citation: 523 N.W.2d 636,207 Mich.App. 76
• Parties: Timothy Lee WINTERS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert DALTON, Jr. and Daniel Kemp, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 636

523 N.W.2d 636

207 Mich.App. 76

Timothy Lee WINTERS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert DALTON, Jr. and Daniel Kemp, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 151334.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 13, 1994, at Lansing.

Decided September 20, 1994, at 9:20 a.m.

Released for Publication Dec. 2, 1994.

Musilli, Baumgardner, Wagner & Parnell, P.C. by Ralph Musilli, St. Clair Shores, for plaintiff.

Wendt, Wendt, Van Eman & Candela by James J. Van Eman, III, Mount Clemens, for defendants.

Before DOCTOROFF, C.J., and SHEPHERD and KIRWAN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff filed this suit seeking damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Defendants appeal as of right from the trial court's denial of their motions for summary disposition, reconsideration, and a directed verdict of dismissal based on the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We reluctantly reverse.

On September 7, 1988, plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle owned by Kemp, plaintiff's employer, and driven by Dalton, a co-worker, and was on his way home after work. While riding in the car, plaintiff was performing one of his job duties, i.e., sorting concrete tickets, but he was not "on the clock." Dalton drove into the back of a bus and plaintiff was seriously injured.

Before instituting this case, plaintiff contacted Kemp's worker's compensation carrier, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, regarding benefits. Aetna denied his claim, stating his injuries were not work-related. Plaintiff then instituted this action.

Before trial, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the issues concerning whether plaintiff received injuries and whether they arose in the course of employment are exclusively within the purview of the Bureau of Worker's Disability Compensation. Defendants argued that plaintiff should be compelled to file an application for hearing with the bureau and obtain a determination whether he was injured in the course of employment before being allowed to pursue this civil action.

The trial court denied defendants' motion, stating that they had waived the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction by virtue of their tardy assertion of the issue and by virtue of the denial of worker's compensation benefits.

The trial court erred in ruling that the dispute regarding subject-matter jurisdiction could be waived by defendants' conduct. The determination regarding whether an employee's injuries grew out of or occurred in the course of the employment relationship is initially within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Worker's Disability Compensation. Adams v. Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 444 Mich. 329, 508 N.W.2d 464 (1993); Szydlowski v. General Motors Corp., 397 Mich. 356, 245 N.W.2d 26 (1976). Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and parties to an action can neither confer jurisdiction by their conduct or action nor waive the defense by not raising it. Paulson v. Secretary of State, 154 Mich.App. 626, 398 N.W.2d 477 (1986).

That is not to say that we condone the actions of Kemp's automobile insurance carrier and worker's compensation carrier, Aetna. We find Aetna's tactics--denying plaintiff's claim for worker's compensation benefits in its role as the employer's worker's compensation carrier and then demanding that plaintiff seek a determination from the Bureau of Worker's Disability Compensation before being allowed...