Rodney Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corporation
333237
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Rodney Collins, proceeding pro se, suffered a 1993 workplace back injury and has filed at least 14 applications for mediation or hearing related to that injury.
- Earlier proceedings resulted in a 1995 magistrate award limited to a closed period; subsequent applications were repeatedly dismissed (often on res judicata) or withdrawn.
- Collins filed a new application in March 2015; defendants (Detroit Radiator and Liberty Mutual) moved to dismiss and sought disciplinary relief and costs under MCL 418.861b, alleging vexatious filings.
- A magistrate dismissed the 2015 application on res judicata grounds but declined to address defendants’ disciplinary request.
- Collins filed a claim for review in the MCAC but failed to file the required transcript under MCL 418.861a(5); the MCAC dismissed the claim for review and deemed defendants’ MCL 418.861b motion moot.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Collins’s claim for review but reversed the MCAC’s mootness ruling and remanded for consideration of defendants’ motion under MCL 418.861b.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ MCL 418.861b motion for costs/discipline became moot after MCAC dismissed Collins’s claim for failure to file transcript | Collins did not contest in this appeal; underlying claim dismissed for failure to file transcript | The motion was not moot; MCAC could still award costs or other discipline under MCL 418.861b despite dismissal | The Court held the motion was not moot and remanded for MCAC to consider the MCL 418.861b motion |
| Whether dismissal for failure to file transcript resolves vexatiousness inquiry | (no argument presented on appeal) | Dismissal under MCL 418.861a(5) does not resolve whether proceedings were vexatious under MCL 418.861b | Court held dismissal does not categorically foreclose sanctions; two remedies (costs, other discipline) remain available |
| Whether the Court should decide factual vexatiousness now | Collins sought review but did not pursue merits here | Defendants asked the Court to find the claim vexatious and impose costs now | Court declined to make factual findings and remanded to MCAC for fact-finding on vexatiousness |
| Whether parties may seek sanctions after underlying dismissal generally | (no separate plaintiff position) | Sanctions and costs may be properly requested and awarded after dismissal, per analogous court-rule precedents | Court observed precedents support consideration of sanctions post-dismissal and applied that principle here |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbuckle v Gen Motors LLC, 499 Mich 521 (de novo review applies to questions of law in workers’ compensation cases)
- DiBenedetto v W Shore Hosp, 461 Mich 394 (MCAC decisions reversible if based on erroneous legal reasoning)
- Kurtz v Faygo Beverages, Inc, 466 Mich 186 (MCAC may dismiss claim for review when transcript not filed absent sufficient cause)
- McIntosh v Chrysler Corp, 212 Mich App 461 (MCL 418.861b parallels vexatious-appeal provisions; uniform sanction standards apply)
- In re Attorney Fees & Costs, 233 Mich App 694 (costs for frivolous actions may be awarded after dismissal)
- Maryland Cas Co v Allen, 221 Mich App 26 (sanctions under court rules may be ordered post-disposition)
- Garrett v Washington, 314 Mich App 436 (mootness is a question of law reviewed de novo)