Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc

Sports 455 Bezeau Palace ENTERTAINMENT, BEZEAU v & PALACE SPORTS INC July 31, Docket 137500. No. Decided 2010. Bezeau, professional hockey player, Michigan a was a

Andre resident signed Michigan play when he a for a team contract Detroit Entertainment, hy Sports injured owned Palace & Inc. He himself Brunswick, a 2000 he fell off ladder in New He Canada. treated became a there and New Brunswick resident. Palace sought then loaned to a Bezeau Rhode Island team. Bezeau compensation aggravated original workers’ benefits after he injury during game magistrate a Rhode Island. The denied the claim, Compensation Appellate but the Workers’ Commission (WCAC) open granted reversed and Bezeau an award of benefits. Sports appealed, Appeals, EJ., Palace and the Court of Borrello, JJ., and and Sawyer vacated the WCAC’s decision Fitzgerald, unpublished curiam, opinion per remanded case in an issued (Docket 258350). February 28, remand, On No. the WCAC magistrate findings. remanded the case to the for further factual pending magistrate remand, While the case was before the Supreme Court decided Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & (2007), holding gave that MCL 418.845 the Workers’ Compensation Agency jurisdiction injuries only over out-of-state if (1) employee Michigan injury awas resident when the oc- Michigan. doing curred the contract of hire was made In so, Supreme Shows, Court overruled Wv G Wade gave Mich 515 Karaczewski retroactive effect. Palace Sports subsequently argued magistrate agency before the that the subject-matter jurisdiction did not have over this case because injury Bezeau was New Brunswick resident when his aggravated. magistrate agreed The and dismissed Bezeau’s claim. affirmed, Appeals The WCAC and the Court of denied Bezeau’s application appeal unpublished leave to order entered 285593). (Docket September Supreme No. The Court argument grant ordered and heard oral on whether to Bezeau’s application appeal action, peremptory for leave or take other directing holding to address whether Karaczewski’s applied should be in this case. 483 Mich 1001 separate opinions, Supreme In Court held: gave retroactive holding that decision is

effect overruled. joined by stated that Justice further Justice Weaver, Hathaway, generally given retroactive Supreme full decisions while Court injustice effect, adopted approach when a more should be flexible may retroactivity, prospective application be and result would from Making precedent. appropriate overrules settled when the decision give weight interests failed to due to the Karaczewski retroactive relying employers employees on law of the well-established and (1932), Corp, Boyd and and Glass 259 Mich 644 has Roberts v I X L justice, disruption in the as in a administration resulted years spent by the six in case in which demonstrated jurisdictional hearings question appeals and the was first before holding in this after decided. The case raised Karaczewski was injuries that the date affects claims occurred on or before based on already decided, long as not as the claim has Karaczewski was system. reached final in the court resolution concurring, agreed interpretation Justice that the Cavanagh, only adopted in have been of MCL 418.845 Karaczewski should prospectively applied be overruled and that Karaczewski should CAVANAGH joined extent it held otherwise. Justice the to the that III(B) separately opinion except part lead full and wrote in preference approach the to stare to state his for modified decisis opinion articulated in her lead Kelly that Chief Justice Magna Corp, Mich Petersen v 316-320 Under justification approach, compelling to overrule the that there is retroactivity of Karaczewski. part dissenting part, Kelly, concurring in Chief Justice agreed applied retroac- that should not have been Karaczewski entirety. tively,but that it should in its further stated be overruled Roberts, Legislature the After Karaczewski overruled enacting abrogated Overruling PA 499. Karaczewski hardship, entirely would not work an undue justifications compelling there do so. concerning retroactivity holding overruled and Karaczewski’s case remanded to the WCAC. separately Justice wrote address statements in also Weaver concerning position Specifically, her on decisis.

the dissent stare represent any opinion observed the lead did not new she that philosophical majority Supreme and stated that her on Court entirely precedent in the lead consistent treatment deciding wrongly her that to overrule decided with view when Bezeau v Palace Opinion Weaver, J. individually precedent, case be each should looked its own judicial restraint, through facts and the lens of common merits sense, and fairness. joined by Corrigan Justice and Markman, Justices Young, dissented from the decision to overrule the retroactive effect substantively stating that it was a means of overrul- ing Giving application only prospective the case itself. essentially advisory opinion, renders it an which not authorized is 3, § Young under Const art 8. Justice further cited numerous majority other recent cases which the in this case retreated from the doctrine of stare decisis. — Compensation Compensation

Workers’ Over Jurisdiction Workers’ Injuries. — Claims Out-of-State Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & 478 Mich held Compensation Agency jurisdiction the Workers’ has over (1) injuries employee only Michigan if out-of-state awas injury resident occurred and of hire contract Michigan, injuries apply made in does not to claims based on decided, long occurred before date Karaczewski was as as the already system claim has not reached final court resolution (MCL418.845). Law Peter B. Bundarin PLLC Peter B. (by Offices of Bundarin) and John A. Braden for plaintiff. Benham,

Conklin P.C. Martin L. Critchell and (by Noeske), F.

Walter for defendant.

Amicus Curiae:

Daryl Stillman, Royal Adler PLLC D. and Barry (by Adler), for the for Michigan Association Justice. j. case, In this we decide whether

WEAVER, correctly gave Court its retroactive effect to decision Karaczewski Farbman Stein & After examination of the NW2d effect overruling retroactivity decision its would Karaczewski have, holding we overrule the gave pursuant the decision its effect. Accordingly, retroactive Opinion Weaver, appeal, 7.302(G)(1), granting in lieu of leave to MCR Compensation the Workers’ the decision of reverse we (WCAC) this case to and remand Commission Appellate with the of this case consistent for the WCAC resolution Karaczewski decision. law in effect before I. AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY FACTS Bezeau, 1998, professional Andre a plaintiff In with the three-year a contract hockey signed player, team owned hockey a Vipers, professional Detroit Entertainment, Inc. At the & defendant Palace and the Michigan, a resident of time, plaintiff was Michigan. signed in contract was 2000, fell from a 45-foot ladder plaintiff In June roofing company father’s New working at his while fall, injured he Brunswick, As a result of the Canada. Plaintiff back, right thigh. stayed lower groin, his his inju- receive treatment in New Brunswick to Brunswick. ries, and he became a resident New plaintiff Detroit loaned Vipers In October hockey Bruins, professional a team to the Providence In game first located Rhode Island. Island, took in Rhode season, place 2000-2001 his plaintiff, aggravating injury. struck player another play has unable to game Plaintiff left the been hockey since incident. compen- applied

In June for workers’ plaintiff he He claimed that had Michigan. sation benefits playing profes- as a result of developed pubis osteitis magistrate A held hockey. hearing before sional Magistrates. Board Compensation the Worker’s February although plain- ruled in 2003 that magistrate disabled, persuasive there was no evidence tiff was 2000 hockey game incident at the October Rhode Sports Bezeau Palace Opinion Weaver, plaintiffs injuries Island caused disabling aggra- or any injuries. vated preexisting Plaintiff appealed WCAC, the decision magistrate’s reversed the findings. The WCAC panel found that at incident the October hockey game factor, a contributing among many, plain- disability. tiffs granted plaintiff The WCAC open an award of benefits. appealed

Defendant the WCAC’sdecision in the Court of In Appeals. February Appeals Court issued an unpublished opinion vacating the decision WCAC and the case remanding to the WCAC to “deter- plaintiff mine whether asserted ‘aggravation’ an ‘con- or theory trial, tribution’ whether such a theoxy properly and, raised on appeal, so, if whether award benefits is proper under [v Rakestraw Gen Dynamics Land Systems, Inc, 469 Mich NW2d (2003)].” Bezeau v Entertainment, Inc, Palace & unpublished opinion curiam per of the Court of Appeals, (Docket February 28, issued 258350), p No. 5. On remand from the Court of Appeals, WCAC issued a decision in October 2006 remanding the case to the board of magistrates to determine whether plain- tiffs condition after the October 2000 hockey-game incident was medically distinguishable from his condi- tion before incident.

Meanwhile in May while the remand to the board magistrates the instant case was pending, this Court issued the jurisdictional Karaczewski on the requirements for workers’ compensation brought claims Michigan. In Karaczewski, this Court overruled the interpretation of MCL 418.845 set forth in Boyd v W G Shows, Wade what

described it an abrogation termed of the statute Boyd’s v I precursor, Roberts X L Corp, Glass 487 Mich 455

460 Opinion by Weaver, J. (1932). 30, Karaczewski, 478 atMich 188 244 NW in forth MCL 418.845 set interpretation of 39-41. The new compen- workers’ Michigan that Karaczewski stated for benefits, injured to a claim for apply sation to laws of at Michigan been resident must have a employee for hire must have and the contract injury time 33, 44. Under Michigan.1 made in Id. been Roberts, applied laws compensation workers’ Michigan injured employee if the was to for benefits even claims for Michigan long a as as contract not resident of 34, Michigan. in id. at 37-38. hire made See decision, defendant As result of did not have magistrates the board of argued that a resi- subject-matter jurisdiction plaintiff because of the 2000 dent of Brunswick at the time October New plain- The and dismissed magistrate agreed incident. WCAC, to the appealed tiffs claim for benefits. Plaintiff magistrate’s ap- decision. Plaintiff which affirmed the appeal Appeals, for in the Court plied leave order entered appeal unpublished denied leave to an (Docket 285593). 5, No. September We appeal this Court. applied Plaintiff leave directing the argument application, ordered on the oral jurisdictional standard parties to address “whether 418.845, interpreted by as this established at MCL Co,& Stein Court in Karaczewski Farbman case.”2 applied should be this clearly Legislature 418.845 to now make it has since amended MCL 13, injuries. January applicable 2008 PA effective to out-of-state See case, overrulmgKaraczewski, plaintiff asks 2009. In as an alternative to retroactively. However, applying not we 2008 PA 499 we do consider retroactivity question this case overrule reach that because we plaintiffs position having Karaczewski applied to suffered injury Karaczewski was decided. before Entertainment, Inc, Sports & Bezeau v Palace 1001- (2009). BEZEAU V PALACE SPORTS Opinion by Weaver,

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether this Court’s decision in a previous case should be overruled is a question of law that this Court de reviews novo. Bush v Shabahang, 156, 164;

III. ANALYSIS A. THE DECISION IN KARACZEWSKI involved an employee whose contract for hire was made Michigan, but who became a resident of another state after employer his transferred him. employee The injured on job the while in the other Karaczewski, state. 478 Mich at 30. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in Michigan. Id. at 31.

The defendants in Karaczewski argued that under the plain language of the Michigan Disability Worker’s Compensation Act, the employee’s claim was not sub- ject to jurisdiction the of the Michigan’s Workers’ Compensation Agency because the employee was not a resident of Michigan at the time of injury. Id. at 58. The WCAC and Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants plain language of the relevant statute, MCL 418.845, would preclude the employee from bringing his claim in Michigan. Id. at 31-32. However, both the WCAC and the Court of Appeals noted that they were unable to rule in the defendants’ favor under the binding Michigan Supreme pre- Court cedents of Boyd and Roberts. Id. at 32.

In Boyd, this Court interpreted MCL 418.845 when faced with a similar situation involving an employee whose contract for hire was made in Michigan but who was injured and died job on the while a resident of another Boyd, state. 443 Mich at 516. The Court exam- Opinion by Weaver, a Roberts, interpreting a case

ined MCL 418.845 The Boyd Id. at 517-520. of MCL 418.845. predecessor that, 418.845] “pursuant [MCL Court held Corp, the Bureau of Work supra, Roberts v I X LGlass have Disability Compensation jurisdiction shall ers’ injuries to the regard without over extraterritorial residence, employ contract of employee’s provided the into in this state with a resident ment was entered 526. employer.” Id. at deter

This in Karaczewski granted Court leave justified.3 mine would be overruling whether 418.845, major of MCL Analyzing plain language jurisdic held that the statute “confers ity this Court Compensation, Bureau of Worker’s now tion for out-of-state work Compensation Agency, Workers’ (1) if is injuries only employee a resident place Michigan injury occurs and the contract Michigan.” hire made in MCL interpretation 30. Karaczewski Court’s interpreta 418.845 conflicted this Court’s directly with tion of the statute in and thus this Court Boyd, same Boyd. objections jus overruled Id. Over the of three tices, gave retroactive majority the Karaczewski effect to of MCL 418.845. Id. at interpretation its new 44 n 15. given

In full ret- general, this Court’s decisions Park, v Allen 465 Mich City roactive effect. Pohutski of (2002). 675, However, 695; 641 NW2d 219 there are exceptions adopt to this rule. This Court should a more injustice if from full flexible would result approach may at 696. be retroactivity. Prospective application Id. the appropriate holding prece- where overrules settled dent. As stated Pohutski-. Id.

3 (2006). Co, Mich 1087 v Farbman Stein & 474 Bezeau v Palace Opinion by Weaver, Walker, adopted This Court from Linkletter v 381 US 618; 1731, 14 L S Ct Ed 2d three factors to weighed determining be a when decision should not have (1) application. purpose retroactive Those factors are: the (2) rule, to be the new served extent of reliance on (3) rule, retroactivity the old effect justice. People Hampton, administration context, plurality In civil NW2d a Huson, of this Court noted that Oil v US Chevron 106-107; (1971), recognized Ct L 92 S 30 Ed 2d 296 question clearly additional threshold whether the decision principle established new Riley a of law. v Northland Remand), (After 632, 645-646; Geriatric Center J.). [Id.] (Griffin, In determining whether Karaczewski incorrectly given effect, retroactive we must first answer the thresh- old question clearly whether Karaczewski established a new of law. principle The decision overrule Boyd established a new interpretation MCL 418.845 that broke from the longstanding interpretation of the Although statute. the Court interpreted statute consistently plain its language, with the Court’s interpre- tation established a new rule law because it affected how the would be applied statute in workers’ cases in compensation way that was inconsistent with how the had statute been previously applied.4 law,

Given that Karaczewski established a new rule of we now weigh factors set forth to deter- Pohutski mine correctly whether Karaczewski was retroac- given First, tive application. we determine the to be purpose served new rule. majority in Karaczewski overruled Boyd because the interpretation of MCL 418.845 recognize failed to that the required statute’s text that an injured employee have must been a resident of Michigan injury at the time of the and the contract for

4 Pohutski, Mich at 696-697. Mich 455 Opinion Weaver, for the in order Michigan in made must have been

hire com- a workers’ successfully file to be able employee of the Thus, purpose Michigan. in claim pensation consistently with the law interpret rule was to new MCL drafting intent when apparent Legislature’s 418.845. determining in to consider next two factors

The retroactively correctly applied whether under old rule of law interests on the reliance are ad retroactivity on the of Karaczewski’s and the effect dissenting and concurring justice. ministration give the decision to noted that in Karaczewski seriously undermine would retroactive effect regarding interests reliance in her dis KELLY stated Justice decisions. BoydIRoberts impli concerns reliance significant “[t]here sent that The under Boyd. and overturning of Roberts by the cated place in for seven these cases has been rationale of lying carriers, and insurance Attorneys, employers, decades. holdings of Roberts on the have relied employees various J., Karaczewski, 478 Mich at Boyd.” (Kelly, noted her Furthermore, Justice WEAVER dissenting). dissenting part: concurring part years reliance for has been extensive [T]here In addition to interpretation of MCL 418.845. Boyd’s courts, have undoubt insurance decisions reliance interpre longstanding edly predicated on this Court’s been injured Boyd. under Nonresident 418.845 tation of MCL initially entered into con plaintiff, who employees, like agreed outside Michigan, later to work hire in but tracts for ability to obtain workers’ Michigan, relied on the have employment rela their based on compensation benefits application Prospective Michigan employers. tionship with resolution assures the fair acknowledges that reliance and compensation [Id. cases. pending those workers’ dissenting part).] J., concurring part (Weaver, Bezeau v Palace Opinion by Weaver, J. In addition to to give Karaczewski’s failure due weight Boyd Roberts, to that reliance on and the dis senting justices noted that retroactivity would result disruption a in the justice. administration of Id. J., concurring in and part dissenting part); (Weaver, (KELLY, J., dissenting). id. at As the instant case shows, it appears that the Karaczewski decision has disrupted the of justice administration cases that came under Karaczewski’s retroactive effect. Plaintiff filed 2001, first his claim in and the parties spent six years going through the appellate process to the Court of Appeals and back to the of magistrates board without having any argument jurisdictional over questions re garding MCL 418.845. the While case on remand at was magistrates the board of Karaczewski was decided and defendant the jurisdictional raised issue for .5 the first time in the tribunal a long-settled Because of part this well-traveled case suddenly became new and years issue the six expended on this work case moot, became we conclude that Karaczewski’s retroac tive effect disrupted the justice. administration of

Because the Karaczewski decision on retroactivity did not give weight due to employers the interests of employees relying the well-established law of Roberts, give it because did not due to weight its effect on the administration of justice, we conclude that the give decision to retroactivity to errone- ous.6 plaintiffs Defendant did include a its defense in answer to initial application compensation benefits, claiming Michigan workers’ injury law did not cover the claim because the occurred Rhode Island. However, hearing defendant did not raise issue at the before the magistrate any appellate stage through years or at the next six until after

Karaczewski was decided. purpose interpreting of the new rule from the law Karaczewski — consistently Legislature’s apparent with drafting intent when MCL Mich 455 Opinion Weaver, J. DECISIS

B. STARE Having effectwas errone- that retroactive established this Court should overrule ous, decidewhether we next gave to Karaczewski. retroactive effect decision principle generally stare This adheres Court Detroit, Robinson v decisis. (2000). However, reexamine we should

NW2d 307 precedent questions legitimate have been Id. at 464. a decision. raised about Upon correctness step reexamination, is deter- our first such wrongly precedent decided. Id. mine whether wrongly precedent was determine that Should we overruling, decided, also “examine effects we including importantly on reliance most the effect overruling and whether would work interests hardship 466. of reliance.” Id. at undue because interest, ask “As the Court must to the reliance previous decision so embed- the has become whether everyone’s accepted, ded, fundamental, to ex- so so just change produce pectations it not that to would readjustments, practical dislocations.” but real-world Id. explained giving earlier,

As we concludethat we have holding retroactive effectto this Court’s Karaczewski Having determined that the was an erroneous decision. given weight. also be As can be seen from the concur- 418.845—must justices signing opinion, rences this of the in the of the some Young’s correctly majority agree dissent that Karaczewski with Justice statute, language justices disagree interpreted with the of the and some Nevertheless, interpretation the we all conclude Karaczewski’s statute. retroactivity the factors of the effect of on Pohutski reliance justice outweigh disruption the effects of of the administration of interpretation. retroactivity In that in fact resulted from Karaczewski’s instance, interpretation the correct of a statute is this we conclude that application application given prospective when retroactive seri- better ously parties’ disrupts on the law and the undermines reliance rule of justice. administration Palace Bezeau v Opinion by Weaver, turn decided, next wrongly we retroactivity holding interests involved. the reliance retro- reviewing effect of case, only In this we are MCL interpretation of Karaczewski’s actively applying only retroactivity applied nature, its By 418.845. the date occurred before injuries that based on claims the time of the decided. At Karaczewski was system operat- decision, compensation the workers’ regard- Boyd and Roberts precedent ing prior under At the under MCL 418.845. questions ing jurisdictional decision, on law only reliance of the Karaczewski time on the was a reliance by parties MCL regarding 418.845 have been There could not precedents. and Roberts for claims Karaczewski decision on the law of the reliance be- before Karaczewski injuries on that occurred based after the bases for those decided cause Karaczewski was Thus, find no interests had arisen. we reliance claims on claims the retroactive effect Karaczewski regarding on the date injuries had occurred or before was decided. examining whether the retroactive step Our next deter- be overruled is to effect of Karaczewski should any effect result overruling that will mine whether in cases affected hardships for involved parties undue noted, As involved parties decision. we have by our had inter- decision no reliance in cases affected retroac- By overruling the involving ests Karaczewski. is only effect those tivity of that precedents the governed that their cases will be claims the bases for those their claims when governed not an an effect is We believe that such first arose. simply they because hardship on the undue the for their claims. returning quo status retroactivity of overruling the for justification Further instant inequity in the can be found the Karaczewski 487 Mich 455 Opinion by Weaver, case, as a result of the retroactivity holding. arose filed, the Boyd When instant case was the and Roberts interpretations governed case, of MCL 418.845 clearly the plaintiff interpreta- and met the of those requirements Boyd tions. The Roberts interpretations remained the governing MCL interpretations of 418.845 for more than six the years while case made its from the of way board WCAC, magistrates to the then to the Court of Appeals, back and, then to the WCACon remand finally,back the magistrates. During board of appellate entire process, of interpretation MCL 418.845 was not an issue this case. But case was before the board magis- trates on remand to entirely determine an unrelated matter, factual this Court handed down decision, overruling the Roberts interpretations all cases which there had not a been final judgment. changed Karaczewski decision therefore the law of case in this the middle of the appellate process without the parties having any raised issue regarding that specific find point law. We that outcome to be inequitable, thus we feel it that should be reversed. have concluded

We that for overruling factors precedent laid out Robinson weigh favor of over- ruling the retroactivity holding of Karaczewski. More- over, justification we have found further for overruling retroactivity holding as result the inequity has arisen in this case. we Accordingly, overrule the holding of gave Karaczewski that retroactive effect to its decision. should

It be noted particularly that our holding today only affects injuries claims based on on or occurred before the date Court decided Karaczewski, as long as the claim not already has reached final resolution in system. the court We any do not aspect overrule than opinion other its retroactive effect. Palace Bezeau v Concurring by Opinion Cavanagh, J. dissent, in Justice the assertions Contrary Young’s there join, MARKMAN also CORRIGAN and Justices entirety. in its to overrule Karaczewski majority is no this KELLY concurs with Chief Justice We note that because she would part dissents opinion part Six Karaczewski. completely in fact overrule Chief Justice agree with chosen not to have KELLY’s as a overrule completely position contained result, opinion of the lead portrayal is inaccurate. Karaczewski’’s dissent Justice Young’s this remains the law of of MCL 418.845 interpretation that occurred after injuries on state for claims based but before was decided date that Karaczewski of MCL 418.845 the amendment effective date of PA 499. enacting 2008

IV CONCLUSION We overrule the decision of WCAC. We reverse effect to Karaczewski give decision to retroactive Court’s it not erroneous, overruling will the decision was because our affected reliance interests of the any affect a result of will occur as decision, hardship and no undue injuries affects claims based holding decision. Our our this Court decided the date that occurred on or before already has not reached Karaczewski, as as the claim long Accordingly, we system. in the court final resolution proceedings to continue remand this case to WCAC deci- the Karaczewski actions before consistent with its sion. and remanded.

Reversed J. J., with concurred Weaver, Hathaway, (concurring). J. in the I concur result, CAVANAGH, III(B). I I in full lead join part except 487 Mich Concurring Opinion by Cavanagh, agree interpretation that the of MCL adopted 418.845 Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & NW2d 56 should only have been applied pro spectively and that Karaczewski should be overruled to the extent it held otherwise. I write separately because whereas the lead opinion applies the stare approach decisis from Detroit, Robinson v 463-468; 613 NW2d 307 I continue to prefer the modified version of this approach articulated Chief Justice KELLY in Petersen v Magna Corp, 316-320; C.J.). (opinion Kelly, result, however, is the same. my Under preferred approach decisis, to stare there is a presumption in favor of upholding precedent that may be only rebutted if there is a compelling justifica- tion to overturn precedent. Id. at 317. In determining whether a compelling justification exists, courts may use a number of evaluative but, criteria if relevant importantly, a compelling justification requires more than a mere belief that a wrongly case was decided.1 Id. at In case, 319-320. question narrow presented is whether there is a compelling justification to overrule the Karaczewski majority’s decision apply its inter- pretation of MCL 418.845 retroactively.

One criterion is particularly relevant ques- to this tion: the extent of reliance on the prior interpretation of MCL 418.845 and the extent to which overruling it might cause special hardship and inequity. See id. at 320. Although the reliance interests usually weigh against overruling or, best, decision are neutral, Petersen, In Kelly provided Chief Justice a list of criteria that courts may use to compelling justification, consider whether there is a but the list is nonexhaustive They and none of the criteria are determinative. only Petersen, need to be evaluated if relevant. See 484 Mich at 320 C.J.). (opinion by Kelly, Palace Bezeau v Opinion by Kelly, C.J. the unusual situation presents this case a decision.2 overruling weigh interests reliance favor be the cases will opinion, in the lead noted As of Karaczewski application by prospective affected occurred before injuries involving only those cases, overruling In those was decided. restoring application retroactive Karaczewski’s with the is in accordance quo status e-Karaczewski pr could hardship fact, inequity In reliance interests.3 is not over of Karaczewski retroactivity if result case, in which the by this This is demonstrated turned. law, of the e-Karaczewski status pr on the parties, relying for six years merits of the case litigating had been I think Thus, because was decided. in this and other similar interests formed that the reliance to overrule justification a compelling constitute cases to overrule decision majority’s I concur precedent, interpreta of Karaczewski’s application the retroactive tion of the statute. dissenting in in (concurring part C.J.

KELLY, v that Karaczewski I the lead concur with part). applied never have been Stein & Co1 should Farbman 2 analysis Indeed, present in a decisis the usual tensions stare Generally, “the decisis balances two concerns: in this stare absent case. community stability legal and the in rules and decisions for need of the case, however, Id. at 314. In this past need of courts to correct errors.” overruling application by the retroactive both concerns are advanced Karaczewski. 3 Karaczewski, the essential rationale Kelly then Justice As stated place interpretation for e-Karaczewski pr of MCL 418.845 had been compensation part of the workers’ decades and was essential seven “ carriers, [attorneys, employers, Michigan, insurance regime such years. 478 Mich at employees” had relied on it for and various (Kelly, J., dissenting). 62 1 28; & 732 NW2d 56 Karaczewski v Farbman Stein 478 (2007). 487 Mich 455 Opinion Kelly, C.J.

retroactively. I would overrule in its en- tirety because I continue to believe that it should not Boyd vWG Wade Shows2 and Roberts v have overruled I X L Glass Corp.3 As I stated in my dissent Karaczewski, during the that Roberts years controlling law, the Legislature took no steps to change or amend MCL 418.845.4 Again, when this Court af- firmed that interpretation of MCL 418.845 in Boyd, Legislature did nothing.

Only after upset this Court years law Karaczewski did the Legislature speak by enacting 2008 PA 499. It abrogated scarcely more than years two after it was Although decided.5 some discard any use of legislative acquiescence as a tool for interpret- ing legislative intent, it is difficult to take issue with the fact Legislature that the took explicit action here.

Furthermore, I believe that the Robinson factors clearly call for overruling First, as dis- Karaczewski.6 cussed previously, the enactment of 2008 PA 499 was a 2 (1993). Shows, W G Wade 443 Mich Corp, Roberts v I X L Glass 244 NW 188 4 Karaczewski, J., dissenting). at 46-47 (Kelly, Legislative Analysis, 1596, See 11, House SB (stating December Michigan Supreme that “the longstanding Court reversed case law” in coverage injuries Karaczewski and “eliminated previously for that had act, been reducing compensation covered under the injured workers, for causing potential problems employers”); Legislative Senate Analysis, (explaining SB November purpose that the 2008 PA Compensation 499 is to Agency’s jurisdic restore the Workers’ Karaczewski). response tion in recognize I ultimately expanded jurisdiction 2008 PA 499 in work- compensation beyond ers’ cases where it had been before Karaczewski. But legislative analyses make clear that the amendment inwas direct response sought jurisdiction to Karaczewski and to restore to the Workers’ Compensation Agency. Detroit, Robinson v Bezeau v Palace Opinion Concurring Weaver, J. undermined and that undercut in the law change hold- the central Allowing the decision. basis for original disturbing has a remain intact ing of Karaczewski of out-of- group the unfortunate disenfranchises effect. It Michigan hire made with contracts state workers job on the after injured who were I into effect. believe PA 499 went but before 2008 decided did not Legislature that the PA 499 is evidence that 2008 of benefits. group this arbitrarily deprive intend to not work would Second, overturning Karaczewski minimal, given on it has been Reliance hardship. undue it displaced Because recently. decided it was embedded, it is not “so Michigan, precedent years fundamental, everyone’s expecta so accepted, so “significant it would result overruling tions” that in reliance displaced itself dislocations.” Karaczewski of the work part a fundamental by overturning terests period, if for a brief only even regime, ers’ compensation 2008 PA enactment of quick Legislature’s thanks to the 499.8 necessitate compelling justifications

I these believe Accordingly, Court overrule Karaczewski. does that Karaczewski majority I concur with the while entirely. I it retroactively, would overrule not apply sign fully I WEAVER, (concurring). J. concur of the Workers’ reversing the decision lead proposed in Petersen factors I to the stare decisis I remain committed 300, 317-320; and I NW2d 564 Magna Corp, adopt those factors. that this Court should believe 7 Robinson, at 466. (discussing dissenting) 478 Mich at 51-61 See (Kelly, finding that not applied factors as to Roberts the Robinson them). overruling single supported factor 487 Mich 455 Opinion by Concurring Weaver, J. (WCAC),

Compensation Commission remand- Appellate WCAC, and ing overruling holding this case to the Stein & Karaczewski v Farbman gave that NW2d 56 decision retroactive effect.

I separately write to correct the mistaken assertions in Young’s dissent, signed by Justice which is Justices CORRIGAN the mistaken including asser- Markman,1 “remaining regarding my tions these three” position on stare decisis. attempts dissent to characterize the majority’s

opinions and not to apply decision retroac- tively as a to effectively decision overrule Karaczewski. inaccurate, This characterization is not only incorrect it misleading deceptive. is and intellectually

Further, the dissent’s to attempt characterize the opinion being lead of a representative as so-called new philosophical majority is also There is philo- false. no sophical majority justices case. While form- ing the each majority agreed with result in this case, each justice reached his or her conclusion based on different reasons.2 comprise remaining Justices and Markman “the Young, Corrigan, justices four,” “majority three” of the former included former Chief Justice Taylor. attempts argument The dissent to make an that there is some sort philosophical majority entirety. that wants to overrule Karaczewski its However, opinions one need look no further than the various written majority proposition. this case to see is no that there such for that When

Karaczewski was decided I in the concurred substance of the opinion, nothing wrong statutory and' I analysis. continue see its with hand, dissenting On part the other Justice Chief is from the lead Kelly opinion very in this case for the reason that thinks she Karaczewski needs completely position understandable, given to be Her overruled. is she dissented from the entire decision in Karaczewski was currently position, decided. But there are not four votes for her so her position majority’s position. Rather, is not the there are in essence six BEZEAUV PALACESPORTS Opinion by Concurring Weaver, lump attempting dissent is It appears of the parts with justices agree the four who together previously had some sort of having into lead have decisis that those fidelity to stare stated TAYLOR’sover- Chief Justice abandoned since former election. defeat in the 2008 whelming statements, made past quotes The dissent various regard- opinion, of the lead justices signing portions those “majority of criticizing the former ing stare decisis (former CORRIGAN, Justices Justice TAYLORand four” Chief MARKMAN). the dissent myself, to YOUNG, respect With improper to the response I made a statement quotes insur- longstanding decades of dismantling unfair of of four” “majority the former by ance contract law Ass’n, Auto Club Ins 562; Devillers v 702 NW2d (2005). Devillers, stated, for correc- In I “Correction The case has not been does not make sense. tion’s sake the doctrine of should not adhere to why made the Court in this case.” Id. at 622 (WEAVER,J, dissent- stare decisis added). ing) (emphasis Devillers statement my appears use of

The dissent’s story some sort of attempt to manufacture to be a weak philosophical try people to to believe get prece- out to overrule justices of exists and is majority The dissent’s by “majority of four.” dent created changed my I somehow assertions have mistaken Justice TAYLOR former Chief of stare decisis since view I am of a part philosophical defeated and that incorrect. majority simply

My Devillers I that was criti- statement itself shows in that specific for stare decisis cizing disregard join with the Chief whatever reason decided not to who have for position in this case. The dissent overrule all of Karaczewski Justice’s making the mistaken simply ignores the convenience of that fact for palatable. dissenting opinion seem more conclusions 487 Mich 455 Concurring by Opinion Weaver, J. My case. Devillers statement is an example my service to the rule of law and a partial expression my view of policy decisis, of stare past is that precedent generally should that, be followed but deciding whether wrongly decided precedent should be overruled, each case should be looked at individually on its facts and through merits the lens of judicial re- straint, sense, common and fairness.3 past decade,

Over the the principal tool used by this Court to decide precedent when a should be overruled is the set guidelines that was laid out in Robinson v Detroit, 462 439, 463; (2000), NW2d 307 written former Justice TAYLOR that Justices agree recently I expressed by with the sentiment Chief Justice Supreme Roberts of the United States Court in his concurrence to the Comm, decision in Citizens United v Federal Election US _, _; 876, 920; (2010), 130 S Ct 175 L Ed 2d when he said that stare command,” decisis is neither an “inexorable Lawrence v. Texas, 2472; [123 539 U. S. (2003), S Ct 508] 156 L Ed 2d nor “a mechanical formula decision,” of adherence to the latest Helvering Hallock, 106, 119 v. 309 U. [60 S. S Ct 84 L 604] Ed were, segregation .... If it legal, wage would be minimum unconstitutional, laws would be and the Government could wire tap ordinary suspects criminal obtaining without first warrants. Plessy Ferguson, See v. [16 163 U. S. 537 S Ct 41 L Ed Education, overruled Brown v. Board 347 U. S. 483 686; (1954); [74 S Ct 98 L 873] Ed Hospital Adkins v. Children’s C., 394;

D. (1923), [43 261 U. S. 525 S Ct 67 L 785] Ed overruled Parrish, WestCoast Hotel 578; Co. v. [57 300 U. S. 379 S Ct 81 L Ed (1937); States, 703] Olmstead v. 564; United [48 277 U. S. 438 S Ct 72 L 944] Ed States, overruled Katz v. United 389 U. S. 507; [88 S Ct 576] 19 L Ed 2d Chief Justice Roberts “principle further called policy” stare decisis a said that it “is not an at _; end in itself.” Id. 130 S Ct at 175 L Ed 2d explained at 807. He greatest purpose “[i]ts that is to serve constitutional ideal—the rule of law. It follows that in the unusual circumstance when fidelity any particular precedent damage does more to this constitutional it, ideal than willing to advance depart we must be more from that precedent.” at _; Id. 130 S Ct at L175 Ed 2d at 807. Bezeau v Palace Opinion by Concurring Weaver, I and that I signed, Markman, Corrigan, Young, case, my lead times. In the instant have used numerous the Robinson properly, applies opinion specifically, I that have Thus, the dissent’s assertion guidelines. logical makes no on stare decisis changed my view sense. in Devillers is

Furthermore, my position I note that on stare decisis way my position inconsistent with no case, any position it inconsistent in this nor is with cases, such as I have taken in other stare decisis that of four” “majority involved the Robinson. Devillers involving interpretation contract overruling precedent (20) In years my old. nearly twenty a case that was from dissent, majori- I I with the agreed Devillers noted that incorrect, ty’s interpretation precedent old specific prece- of time since that given passage but decided, the Court should not disturb that dent was because the law had become so longstanding precedent it harm the reliance ingrained that to overrule would My position in insurance cases. parties interests of the reliance entirely Devillers was consistent with guidelines.4 of the Robinson prong My in the instant case is also consistent with position guidelines the reliance of the Robinson since prong portion being the case of which a is now overruled, Further- only years ago. decided three more, merely that is overruled is portion being the new decision to applying decision’s retroactive effect— is My actually actions. statement Devillers parties’ past case because in my position the instant supportive my apply long- has been to position both instances had relied on when their cases standing law that arose. guidelines, prongs explanation of the Robinson For an various opinion,

see the lead ante 466. 487 Mich 455 Dissenting Opinion by Young, J.

The dissent cannot to a statement I point where professed some sort of position regarding stare decisis doctrine, as an immutable I because have not taken that and therefore position, have made no such statements. instance, For I specifically sign chose not Chief Justice KELLY’slead Petersen v Magna Corp, 300, 316-320; 773 NW2d 564 because it proposed create a standardized test for stare decisis. There is no need adopt any for this Court to standardized regarding fact, test stare In decisis. it is an impossible task. many

There are factors to consider when deciding whether or not to overrule precedent, the impor- tance of such factors changes often on a case-by-case basis. The guidelines Robinson relevant cases case, such as the instant in which reliance interests are By risk. no I means do consider the Robinson guidelines “be-all, end-all test” that pre- constitutes cedent of this Court to be used whenever this Court overruling considers precedent. I view Robinson as merely providing guidelines to assist this Court in its legal analysis pertinent. end,

In the the consideration of stare decisis and whether to overrule wrongly decided precedent always includes service to the rule of law through applica- tion and judicial restraint, exercise of sense, common and a sense of justice for all. fairness —

YOUNG,J. (dissenting). I dissent from the decision by the majority to “overrule the retroactive effect of Karaczewski.”1 Having failed to identify any flaw in analysis overruling the application of the case is simply a means of substan- Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Palace Bezeau v Opinion Dissenting Young, saying explicitly without overruling tively language plain interpreted properly so. to the applied 418.845, appropriately it was MCL of majority Because courts. the lower by at bar case advisory render essentially I dissent. opinion, pro- MCL 418.845 injury, plaintiffs

At the time vided: controversies jurisdiction over all have

The bureau shall this state where injuries outside arising suffered out the time of this state at employee is a resident of injured state. Such made in this contract of hire was injury and the to the com- dependents shall be entitled his employee or [Empha- by this act. provided and other benefits pensation added.] sis not a was plaintiff that

Here, question there is no Therefore, injured. was state when he of this resident Karaczewski, magis- 418.845 and to MCL pursuant Compensation held that the Workers’ correctly trate expressly This Court jurisdiction.2 did not have Agency applied to be its decision was in Karaczewski stated 44 n 15 Mich at 478 cases. pending to all (“[0]ur claimants to all apply in this case shall holding awarding judgment a final has not been whom there Because this opinion.”). date of this as of the benefits decided, Karaczewski was case when a pending was applicable. is jurisdictional pursue issue this defendant did not It irrelevant that is challenge, upon or “must All courts was decided. until after Karaczewski jurisdiction subject-matter exists ....” sponte, confirm even sua (2005) by 520, 540; (opinion Yackell, 703 NW2d 473 Mich Reed v Taylor, time, any C.J.). challenged jurisdiction may Thus, subject he matter Lehman, Mich appeal. Lehman the first time on if raised for even Estate, 697, (1945); Cody’s 105-106; 102, In re 19 NW2d 502 394; Fraser, (1940); 288 Mich In re Estate 292 NW 535 NW 1 Mich 455 Dissenting Opinion Young, J. noted, the very

As Karaczewski since first workers’ jurisdictional compensation statute was enacted in Michigan the law consistently provided work system ers’ out-of-state compensation jurisdiction over (1) injuries injured both employee resided injury this the time state at the contract of However, hire made in Michigan. Boyd v W G Shows, Wade this Court declined to the residency requirement enforce do because so would and “unduly be “undesirable” restrictive”3 and because the had requirement been ignored Court since Roberts v I X L Corp, Glass (1932).4 644; 244 NW 188

Karaczewski overruled on the of the basis rather proposition unremarkable that the conjunction use of the “and” in MCL 418.845 unambiguous that the be Nonetheless, statute must applied as written. in order to protect the reliance interests of injured who plaintiffs had already received an of compensation award benefits as part judgment, of a final Karaczewski’s holding was given effect, limited retroactive to applying only claimants who had not received a judgment awarding final benefits as of the date of the opinion.5 Legislature While the 3 Boyd, Mich at 443 524. 4 However, justices dissenting Boyd noted, as in the rationale of compensation place Roberts was based on the elective nature workers’ in analytical that time Roberts decided. The dissenters noted that underpinnings Legislature of Roberts were eliminated when the made the compensation compulsory Boyd, workers’ scheme in 1943. Before several opinions Appeals plain Court language had enforced of the statute on Ethyl Corp, App 368; (1983); this basis. See 124 Mich NW2d 42 335 Wolf v Driveaway App 802; Bell (1985); v F J Boutell 141 369 NW2d 231 (1988). Chrysler Corp, 670; App Hall v 172 Mich 432 NW2d 398 5 Karaczewski, agree 478 Mich at n 15. While I with the lead opinion’s given generally statement this Court’s decisions are fall effect, explicitly given retroactive Karaczewski was limited retroactive effect. BEZEAU V PALACE SPORTS Dissenting Opinion Young, J. statutory provision the relevant subsequently amended out-of-state jurisdiction over agency’s expand to the amended give chose not to Legislature injuries,6 claimants leaving thus application,7 retroactive statute in holding to the Karaczewski.8 subject as plaintiff such identify are unable to majority holding defect in the substantive any analytical con- indeed, explicitly Karaczewski-, Justice WEAVER In- analysis. in Karaczewski’s substantive curred the limited retroactive stead, elect to overrule they purely prospec- favor of application However, v Hathcock Wayne as Co application.9 tive effectively are purely prospective opinions explained, authority advisory and our constitutional opinions, to those circum- is limited advisory opinions issue 3, 8,§ in Const art which stances set forth in the case.10 clearly applicable present not January 13, PA effective 2009. Inc, D TranspExpress, See Brewer v A Legislature amended MCL 418.845 this Court’s The fact that the after indicating that it intended the amended decision in Karaczewski without significantly retroactively applied makes this case distin statute to be Park, City guishable 641 NW2d from Pohutski v Allen holding prospectively only, apply this did its Court pertinent Legislature in Pohutski the amended the statute because before thus, and, reason to indicate that it intended this Court’s decision had no retroactively apply than Court’s rather the amended statute yet-to-be-decided plaintiffs Even counsel acknowl decision Pohutski. stated, argument edged he “I think that is factual as much at oral consequently you’d not difference Pohutski and this case between apply certainly required Pohutski to this case ....” not to follow or he— 9 deny preferred Interestingly, have Justice Weaver would ruling parties appearing before the benefit of the Karaczewski even to (Weaver, J., concur 478 Mich at 45 Court in Karaczewski. part). ring part dissenting 10 (2004) 98; Hathcock, 445, Wayne n 765 v 471 Mich 684 NW2d Co (“[T]here constitutionally question it is is a serious as to whether 487 Mich 455 Dissenting Opinion by Young,

The decision this case is another instance in which the Court’s new philosophical majority seems to retreat from previously its stated fidelity to stare decisis.11 legitimate purely prospective opinions, for this Court to render as such rulings are, essence, advisory opinions. only instance in which we constitutionally advisory opinion upon authorized to issue an is request Legislature and, then, of either house of the or the Governor — only important questions upon ‘on of law solemn occasions as to the constitutionality legislation after it has been enacted into law but ”), 1963, quoting 3, before its effective § date.’ Const art 8. 11 See, e.g., City Park, 675, 712; v Pohutski Allen 465 Mich 641 NW2d (2002) (“[I]f J., dissenting) Court, believing each successive (Kelly, reading past readings wrong, rejects precedent, its is correct and then the year year, law will rendering jurisprudence fluctuate from danger our ously unstable.”); People Hawkins, 488, 517-518; 468 Mich 668 NW2d (2003) (“ J., dissenting) prece ‘We have overruled our (Cavanagh, intervening development dents when the of the law has “removed or conceptual underpinnings prior decision, weakened the from the or where the later law has rendered the decision irreconcilable with com peting legal policies.” changes doctrines or compel . .. Absent those or ling bearing Congress’ original evidence system intent... our de prior mands that we interpretations ”), adhere to our of statutes.’ quoting States, 284, 295; Neal 763; v United 516 US 116 S Ct 133 L Ed 2d (1996), quoting Union, 164, 173; Patterson v McLean Credit 491 US (1989); 109 S Ct 105 L Ed 2d 132 Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd 4, 11 Comm, 197, (2007) J., 731 NW2d 41 dissenting) (Cavanagh, (“ decisis, ‘Under principles the doctrine of deliberately stare of law examined competent jurisdiction and decided a court of become precedent lightly ”), departed.’ quoting should not be People v Jamieson, 61, 79; (1990); 436 Mich 461 NW2d 884 Brown v Manistee Co Comm, (1996) (“[A]bsent 354, 365; Rd 550 NW2d 215 the rarest circumstances, we precedent.”); should remain faithful to established Ass’n, 562, 622; Devillers v Auto Club Ins (“Correction J., dissenting) for correction’s sake does not make (Weaver, why sense. The case has not been made the Court should not adhere to case.”); the doctrine of Berg, Hathaway attacks, stare decisis in this (“ Michigan Lawyers Weekly, ‘People October need to know is,’ Hathaway what the law said. T believe in Something stare decisis. drastically wrong must be ”); Lawyers’ for the court to overrule.’ election guide: Judge Hathaway, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Diane Marie October (quoting running position Justice then on the Hathaway, Appeals, saying many Court of appellate “[t]oo as being decisions are judicial decided overturning precedent”). activists who are 483 v Palace Bezeau Opinion Dissenting Young, J. majority philosophical in the Court’s the shift Since sought pointedly has majority the new January has failed to decided12and only recently precedents out of this Court.13 precedents recent effect to other give retroactivity of overruling the Today, by 12 Co, 289; See, Regents 487 Mich 791 e.g., v Titan Ins Univ Mich (2010) Ass’n, Mich (overruling Club Ins 476 Cameron v Auto 897 NW2d 180; Carrier, [2006]); Mich 795 55; v 487 McCormick 718 NW2d 784 (2010) Fischer, 109; (overruling Kreiner Mich 683 NW2d v 471 NW2d 517 Prop [2004]); Cas Ins v Auto & Co Bd Comm’rs State 611 Lenawee of Rd (2009) parties Miller Co, (directing to consider whether 485 Mich 853 [2007], 102; Contracting, 462 was Chapman Mich 730 NW2d 477 v (2010) Adelman, (directing decided); correctly Edry Mich 901 v 485 Sys, Mich Healthcare 465 Wickens v Oakwood parties to consider whether decided); Lansing [2001], correctly Ed Ass’n 53; Sch was 631 NW2d 686 (2010) (overruling 349; Ed, Lee Lansing NW2d 686 487 Mich 792 v Bd of [2001]); Comm’rs, 726; 629 NW2d 900 464 Mich v Macomb Co Bd of Sable, Quality, Mich Dep’t 485 Anglers Inc v Environmental of the Au (2010) Citizens (directing parties whether Mich to consider 1067 280; Inc, Mich America 479 v Nestlé Waters North Water Conservation Dunes, Dep’t [2007], Environ Inc v 447 and Preserve 737 NW2d [2004], correctly 508; were Quality, NW2d 847 471 Mich 684 mental (2009) Co, (directing decided); Mut Ins 485 Mich 881 Hoover v Mich Co, 472 v Farm Mut Auto Ins to consider whether State Griffith decided); [2005], correctly 521; v Colaianni Mich 697 NW2d 895 appeal (granting Corp, leave to Dev 485 Mich 1070 Stuart Frankel Co, Sprinkler Lawn v Buckler Automatic consider whether Trentadue decided). [2007], correctly 378; Mich 738 NW2d 664 479 13 Servs, (2009), See, e.g., Saginaw 483 Mich 918 Vascular Hardacre v Ctr, Borgess majority 481 Mich Boodt v Med in which the failed to follow Restaurant, (2008); Shepherd 558; Bar & 483 44 Sazima v 751 NW2d Chrysler (2009), v Blue Arrow it failed to follow Mich 924 in which (1940), Lines, 606; v and Camburn Transp Mich 295 NW 331 295 (1999); Remand), (After 46 459 Mich 592 NW2d Northwest Sch Dist (2009), in it failed to Halperin, Mich 965 which v 483 Vanslembrouck 244-245; Hosps, NW2d 561 Vega 736 v Lakeland follow (2009), (2007); Holbrook, it failed to Mich 970 Juarez v (2008); Beasley Khouri, v v follow Smith Auth, (2009), Wayne Airport Michigan, Co Chambers (2009), Univ, (2009), Mich 917 v Mich State Mich 1081 and Ward Rowland; Farm Mut Auto Ins and Scott v State which it failed to follow v Allstate it failed to follow Thornton Mich 1032 in which 487MICH455 Dissenting Opinion by Young, J. again apply precedent

the Court refuses to a recent majority this Court. Because the prospectivity in the use substantively overruling as a means of Karaczewski, I dissent.

Corrigan Young, Markman, JJ., concurred with Ins and Putkamer v Transamerica 391 NW2d 320 America, Corp Ins

Case Details

Case Name: Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 31, 2010

Citation: 795 N.W.2d 797

Docket Number: Docket 137500

Court Abbreviation: Mich.