*1 436 Mich 496 PRODUCTS, INC TOWNSEND v M-R 4). (Calendar 10, Argued May No. Decided Docket No. 85281. 28, Rehearing September 437 Mich 1202. 1990. denied in was awarded workers’ benefits Debra Townsend injuries of her 1982 for sustained in the course March of Products, Pending appeal, employment M-R Inc. the de- with percent weekly pay seventy of the fendant was ordered award, by July, tendered one but had ap- payment. defendant’s The wcab thereafter dismissed the required payments. peal In of its failure to make the because plaintiff sought against a award December of defendant, defendant to and a referee ordered the $1,500 comply. pay for its failure to The wcab affirmed. When made, plaintiff again adjudicated payments not copies sought penalties, filing of her a number first 1985, hearing copy. May with a different date on each penalties, the defendant to in referee ordered $1,500 penalty petitions for each of the fifteen filed. The wcab awards, finding all set aside but one of language of the because it was unable to ascertain from the specific weekly periods petitions in which the defendant the. petition alleging payments, only one late or had failed to make improper payments The Court was deemed to have been filed. Beasley Mackenzie, P.J., Harrison, Appeals, and and M. G. curiam, JJ., opinion per reinstat- reversed and remanded $22,500, ing finding plaintiff was entitled the award of that the multiple penalties since the defendant had chosen collect (Docket payments receiving after several No. withhold 103297). appeals. The defendant Riley opinion joined Levin, In an Justice Chief Justice Brickley Supreme Griffin, and Justices Court held: penalties may added to an award No more than statutory weekly compensation interest where benefits References 2d, Compensation 658. Am Jur Workmen’s wrongful delay liability Tort of worker’s insurer for to make due. 8 ALR4th 902. or refusal Townsend v M-R Products weekly paid thirty benefits or accrued within becoming days payable. due and Disability Compensation Section Workers’ provides weekly compensation Act if benefits or accrued thirty becoming days benefits are not within *2 payable, per day paid $50 due and is to to the worker for be day thirty days paid, up each over that the are not a benefits $1,500. weekly compensation When total of benefits remain unpaid, they category weekly compen- moved out of weekly Weekly compensa- sation into accrued benefits benefits. weekly subcategories tion and accrued benefits are of benefits. Thus, day required per day is $50 to be added for each in which paid unpaid weekly compensa- the benefits are whether for weekly provision tion or accrued benefits or both. The that not $1,500 pursuant may more than in total be added to the unpaid weekly compensation subsection includes both benefits unpaid and accrued benefits. Construed in the context subsection, permits of this a of the entire maximum $1,500 against employer to be levied an or insurer for delin- quent compensation unpaid or benefits. 801(2) reading 2. A of a § that would entitle a worker to $1,500 per $78,000 payment in week would result annually, statutory in addition to benefits and interest. The Co, (1983), Mfg App v rationale of DeKind Gale 125 Mich 598 reading $1,500 necessary single pen- that a such a because alty employers delaying not deter would or insurers from benefits, payment they of benefits because would withhold them, thereby greater invest and realize a return much than ignores penalty, percent payable that ten interest is on all late from the date each payment is due. penalty provision 3. When was added in provide act workers’ did not for the 1960, however, Supreme interest. In Court held that inter- legal percent per payable est at the rate of five annum was on by judgment compen- entered the circuit court on a workers’ decision, required sation Since that award. interest was to be employers percent per by and insurers at five annum on regard workers’ awards without to whether judgment sought been had or entered a circuit court. Legislature provide act amended the a rate decided, per percent light twelve annum in because it of then- rates, percent current market interest interest five employers encouraged delay paying and insurers workers’ compensation benefits. There have been would no cause for 436 Mich op Opinion the Court $50/$l,500 concern, however, limitation if the legislative such required $78,000 per year penalty was truly that a meant and, thus, rate the interest payment, need to increase no late delay pay- percent percent to forestall to twelve from five ment of benefits. $1,500 may case, for all the be added more than 4. In this no involved. weeks Reversed. Boyle Archer, joined Justices Justice 17.237(801X2) 418.801(2);

dissenting, MSA that MCL stated penalty upon imposition for each of a allows compensation payments to a or of weeks week plaintiff unpaid. not seek a did Because worker are week, sought of the referee’s affirmance but for each necessary award, she was original to decide whether it is not filing petition, filing original continue required, collecting penalty payments. The prerequisite to as a adequate provided notice. defendant (1988) 15; App reversed. Mich Pay Penalty. — Compensation — Benefits Failure to Workers’ may penalties added to an award of No more statutory interest where workers’ *3 weekly are benefits weekly or accrued benefits (MCL becoming payable days paid thirty due and not within 17.237[801][2]). 418.801[2];MSA Timothy (by Timothy Offices, P.C. J. Bott Law Bott), plaintiff. for (by Phillips Dixon, Geoff Smith, P.C.

Walton, & Smith), for the defendant. G.

Amici Curiae: Ducey, Chuhran, Benham, &

Conklin, Listman Berge), (by and David J. Thomas P. Chuhran P.C. Michigan Association. Self-Insurers’ for Linkner, Charles Granzotto, and Monica Mark Michigan Lawyers Associa- Trial P. Burbach for tion. 801(2) Disabil- of Workers’ J. Section

Levin, M-R Townsend v Opinion Court if provides weekly Act1 that Compensation ity or accrued benefits benefits days becoming within due paid thirty not are shall be per day and payable, $50 thirty each benefits day days for over worker $1,500.00 than paid, more "[n]ot pursuant to this subsec- may in total be added tion.” $1,500 may be added

We hold no more involved. for all the weeks

i working at M-R her back while injured Townsend Products, compensa- Inc. filed for workers’ She award of open and obtained $61 tion benefits Products, in- M-R neither apparently week. per as a qualified nor properly sured for self-insurer, to Townsend failed to benefits pay 1985.2 through middle of the fall of 1983 from pursuant filed Fifteen of delinquent payments. for the §801(2) deemed to been petitions3 properly have filed, for penalties, in each against M-R Products. The petition, awarded $1,500.4 The Court of reduced the award wcab 17.237(801X2). 418.801(2); MCL MSA experiencing apparently financial M-R Products was difficulties. during apparently also failed to M-R Products latter part December, 1982, A was filed in of 1982. April, and a was awarded $1,500 penalty appears incorporated been in a circuit to have This June, against judgment entered M-R Products court paid. which was petitions, properly filed for one week. The Of the fifteen one was periods ranging time weeks to six months. covered two others *4 filed, petitions Although M-R least fifteen Products had at hearing. day first two before the The received hearing copies adjourned provide with M-R Products respond. petitions and time to other 4 598; Co, citing Mfg App wcab, v Gale 125 Mich 337 DeKind 500 436 Mich 496 Opinion op the Court Appeals $22,500 reinstated award. 173 Mich (1988). 15, 16; App NW2d ii Co, DeKind v Gale Mfg App Mich 606; (1983), Appeals Court of held $1,500 that a worker may obtain an award of period each for which paid were not and for which the worker filed a 801(2).5 petition under §

The dissent concludes that a worker obtain may $1,500 for each week that benefits are delinquent or unpaid, and specifically declines to rule on "DeKind’s petition-filing requirement.”6

The dissent construes last sentence §801(2) providing that not more than added, total may be in isolation from the rest of that subsection.

Section provides: If weekly compensation beneSts or accrued beneñts are not paid days within 30 becoming payable, due and in cases where there is ongoing dispute, not an per day $50.00 shall be paid added and to the worker for day each over 30 days in which the paid. benefits are not Not more may total be added (1983), NW2d 252 petitions found separate that Townsend had failed to file period delinquency. for each accompanying See text n 5. DeKind, supra, p employer, self-insurer, 5 ln bankrupt a during period years failed payments The penalty. regular of about five to make benefit single to the penalty petition. worker. The worker filed a wcab, affirming referee, the decision of the awarded a The Court of affirmed. Court, responding argument §801(2) to the worker’s provides delinquent payment, for each held that the penalty provision applies to each in which benefits are not and for which the worker has "filed a for a on the nonpayment.” Id. 6Post, p 512. *5 501 M-R v Opinion op the Court 17.237(801)(2). 418.801(2); MSA this subsection. [MCL Emphasis added.][7] compensa- "weekly refers to both The subsection tion benefits” When paid weekly benefits.” "accrued compensation "weekly remain un- benefits” "weekly category they moved out of are weekly compensation bene- into "accrued benefits” weekly compensation Weekly and accrued fits.” subcategories Thus, of "benefits.” $50 are benefits day required per day "in for each to be added is paid” unpaid whether are not which the benefits for fits or both. weekly weekly or accrued bene- §801(2), providing that The last sentence may $1,500.00 added in total be "[n]ot more than unpaid pursuant subsection,” includes both to this unpaid weekly weekly accrued benefits 8 Construed in the context benefits.7 encompassed PA this subsection the enactment of 1985 Before benefits, weekly only weekly "medical or accrued but also not benefits amendment, bills, delinquent or the 1985 or travel allowance.” Before benefits, bills, unpaid triggered amendment eliminated or travel allowances all medical penalty provision limitation. The 1985 with a bills, or travel” from words "medical 801(2), provides for an additional and added which § nonpayment of medical bills or travel allowance: for paid are not within 30 If medical bills or travel allowance nonpayment

days after the carrier has received notice of mail, ongoing dispute, in cases where there no certified due, less, the bill whichever is shall be $50.00 or the amount of day days paid for each over 30 added and which the medical bills more to the worker paid. or travel allowance are not Not may added to this in total subsection. 801(2), provided originally PA enacted Section as benefíts, beneñts, weekly compensation medical accrued "[i]f becoming bills, days paid within 30 or travel allowance are ongoing dispute, payable $50.00 is an in cases where there due and per day day for each over be added and to the worker shall bills, compensation, days not phasis medical or travel allowance in which the (Em changed "compensation” paid.” to "benefits.” 1981 PA 195 added.) 436 Mich 496 Opinion the Court embedded, in which it is the last entire subsection sentence 801(2) provides § a maximum against may or be levied unpaid compensation delinquent or insurer owing to a worker. benefits

hi §801(2), reading pay- if Under the dissent’s delayed year, ment of for a a worker *6 per week, $1,500 to of would be entitled an award annually, $78,000 to the addition benefits and statutory interest. adopt

The DeKind rationale dissent would the single $1,500 that a not deter em- would delaying payment ployers or insurers from of "[t]o The dissent further states that be- benefits. $1,500 lieve that a maximum deter the compensation of would failing majority employers from to say is naive, the least.”9 argues, similarly potential DeKind also and the dissent contends, awaiting that is an investment there employer

the or insurer who would delib- erately argu- payment withhold of benefits. that if an were to ment is withhold years it benefits for a number benefits and earn could invest more than "much .”10 investments . . . argument ignores percent that ten interest 801(6)11 payable §

is from the date each payments. payment In in is due on all late per case, benefits, week, stant provide compensation Townsend’s at $61 year. M-R a If benefits,” repeat compensation phrases "weekly Rather benefits,” weekly "compen- and "accrued sation”/“benefits” to the drafters used the shorter encompass both. 9Post, p 510. 10DeKind, supra, p 605. accompanying n 15 text. See M-R Products Townsend v Opinion of the Court benefits, $3,172, at year invested one interest, then, having in mind percent

twelve paid pursuant must be percent ten interest twenty years M-R 801(6), before it would be over Products netted

iv provision was added When pro- did not 1977, compensation act the workers’ however, of interest. In vide for the legal rate had held that interest at the this Court on judg- was percent per payable of five annum on a workers’ the circuit court ment entered decision, interest award.13 Since and insurers required by employers compensa- on workers’ percent per at five annum regard judgment to whether tion awards without a circuit sought from or entered had been court.14 §801(5) amended Legislature paid pur-

provide: "When referee, board, suant to an award of a court, on the shall be or a interest per annum from the date paid at rate 12% *7 due, until payment each was paid.”15_ 12 appears payable under the workers’ It the maximum benefit week, currently per per year. If that $427 act is differential, percent it at the two interest would sum were invested $1,500. years over three to net take 13 Court held that the circuit court was authorized to allow This (five legal percent) judgment on a when it enters a rate interest (MCL 3, 413.13; pursuant part 13 of the act award to § act, 17.187, present subsequently 863 MCL MSA 418.863; reenacted as 17.237[863]). v Doehler-Jarvis Div of Nat’l Lead MSA Wilson (1960). Co, 510; 100 226 358 Mich 14 Div, Corp, 464; Norge Borg-Warner 116 See Drake v 367 Mich Roberts, 13, (1962); 22; 395 Mich 233 NW2d NW2d 842 Solakis v (1975). 17.237(801X5). 418.801(5); Subsequently, MSA 1981 PA MCL language percent, quoted the interest rate was reduced to ten and the (6) 801.1985 PA 103. became subsection of § 436 Mich by Cavanagh, J. per-

The interest rate was increased from five Legislature percent to cent twelve because light decided, in of then current market interest percent encouraged rates, employers of five interest delay paying and insurers workers’ would, however, benefits. There have legislative been no cause for such concern if the truly $50/$l,500 limitations meant that required paid year payment, to be for late and, thus, no need increase the interest rate percent percent from five twelve forestall delay Legisla- Clearly, of benefits. ture did not understand that it "intended” that year paid payment. $78,000 a was to for late may We hold that no more than be added for all the weeks involved. Brickley

Riley, C.J., JJ., Griffin, con- J. Levin, curred with (dissenting). Defendant, M-R Prod- appeals

ucts, Inc., Appeals from a decision of the Court of Compensation which reversed a Workers’ Appeal penalties Board reduction in owed de- employer. portion fendant I affirm the would holding the Court of decision that MCL 17.237(801)(2)1 418.801(2); MSA of the Worker’s 17.237(801X2) 418.801(2); provides: MCL MSA weekly compensation If benefits or accrued paid days becoming payable, in are not cases where there is not an shall be added and days within 30 due and ongoing dispute, per day $50.00 day to the worker for each over 30 paid. in which the benefits are not Not more than may in total be added to this subsection. provision prior This was amended 1985 PA which deleted allowance, 801(3), and travel and created § reference medical bills imposition penalties for failure to those which allows for expenses. *8 v M-R Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, J. Compensation imposition Disability Act allows the multiple penalties employer’s for an failure to pay weekly benefits.

i Plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ alleging 1979, in October that she had injured April lifting her back 1979 while boxes hearing employer. 1982, for her March a ref- granted plaintiff open eree an award. appealed

Defendant M-R Products to the wcab. appealed, seeking adjustment Plaintiff also appeal the amount of the award. While the pending, plaintiff pay defendant was ordered seventy percent weekly award, compen- § 862 of the act. Defendant tendered one covering February 3, sation through April July plaintiff 1982, 1982. In any notified the she had not received wcab subsequent payments, and the wcab dismissed appeal August 26, 1982, defendant’s on because of required payments. its failure make the Having plaintiff payments, received no further seeking 14, 1982, filed a on December a against April 28, award defendant. On hearing 1983, a referee ordered defendant penalties $1,500 in for defendant’s failure to com- ply 11,1982, with the March award benefits. appealed requested

Defendant dispute penalty payment. award On February 10, 1984, wcab affirmed penalty award.

Despite ruling, this defendant still failed to adjudicated payments. again make the sought penalties Plaintiff against nonpayment defen- filing copies dant, this time number of her 436 Mich Cavanagh, *9 copy.2 petition each different date on with a first petition stated: Each purpose the of re- petition

This filed for sole the upon questing penalty payments the failure with payment in accordance defendant to make Judge Law the decision of the Administrative from the Bureau dated 2/3/82 and mailed [of Compensation] on 3/11/82. Worker’s May 1985, an answer to defendant submitted penalty petitions, plaintiff’s multiple a hear- and hearing ing result, referee a the was held. As penalties pay $22,500 to in defendant to ordered plaintiff.3 appealed set which to the wcab,4 Defendant plaintiff’s aside all but one there that since The wcab determined awards. parties stipulations by or trial testi- the were no periods support specific mony enumerated carry plaintiff plaintiff’s petitions, her failed to in preponderance proof by of evidence. a burden of Mfg panel v Gale on DeKind relied The wcab (1983), App lv Co, 598; 337 252 125 Mich (1983), in De- noted that Mich 852 den 418 provision Kind, that the the Court warned injured designed workers, as a windfall was not 2 1984, complaint Court in Manistee Circuit Plaintiff also filed a opinion seeking an The entered from defendant. court plaintiff as of stating judgment defendant owed 9,1984. June petitions According plaintiff’s attorney, not filed while the lapse court, year This time and a half. in the circuit about case was 14, September petitions by on the bureau in the received reflected is 1984), 13, 16, 1984, August April (covering period from 20, 1984, August (covering period February and on to 1985). January opinion filed reflects a schedule of Court of The $1,500 penalty assess plaintiff for each the basis which formed (1988). 15; App 433 NW2d 374 173 Mich ment. 1263.

4 1987 WCABO M-R v Opinion Dissenting pay- benefit prompt to ensure measure as a but DeKind’s pronounce- emphasized panel ments. ap- provision ment plied which "each filed has injured worker and for which

not nonpayment. on for a petition employer on put will filing of the seeking only the the worker notice that missed WCABO penalty.” but also payment, [1987 DeKind, App Mich 1263, 1264, citing Emphasis deleted.] of DeKind the intent According to wcab, *10 petitions penalty to file encourage plaintiffs was to the in which bene- periods weekly specific for the same file the merely "not paid, not fits were [to] specify any which did petition, xeroxed date, was as signatory the changed period only but it was The said panel case.”5 in the instant done in the ascertain, language the unable period defendant specific weekly which petitions, also found panel payment.6 to make failed by received bureau petitions that several day. the same time-stamped in "bundles” Thus, panel concluded: plaintiff penalty not file a case did the instant missed, instead

petition every time a was petition times. nonspecific several she filed one We, therefore, conclusion as did reach the same DeKind, Court; having only one plaintiff filed 5 1987 WCABO indicating plaintiff sought penalty in the Clauses provided in similar manner: Penalty covers the Bureau 10/10/83 Petition received through

payments mum The maxi- 9/5/83. overdue from 8/15/83 is due. 436 Mich Cavanagh, petition alleging improper payments or late only penalty. p 1265.] [Id., entitled to one Appeals focusing reversed, The Court of on §801(2) application whether erroneous under the DeKind the wcab’s analysis. Recognizing that, DeKind, in the defendant was ultimately responsible paying only one penalty, the Court nevertheless determined that applied "overly the wcab had DeKind in an nar- exalting fashion, row Mich form over substance.” 173 (1988). App plain- 15, 22; petition alleging tiff there had filed one late improper payments, plaintiff in or contrast peti- case, the instant who submitted some fifteen penalty payments. tions for purpose petition The Court stated that the requirement protect employers in the statute is to by providing them with notification em- ployee’s intent to seek a for each week compensation payment that the due is late. While provision applies to each paid, which the benefits are not trigger employee entitlement, needs to file put on notice that seeking particular worker is for that period.

Accordingly, the Court of reinstated the finding $22,500 award, referee’s that since defen- *11 payments dant had chosen to withhold after re- ceiving plaintiff’s petitions, plaintiff several of multiple penalties. entitled to collect the

ii key today issue before Court is whether 801(2) penalty § $1,500 allows a for each late weekly payment, imposes or a one-time maximum M-R Townsend v Products by despite compensa- penalty $1,500, the number of employer. Plaintiff tion missed argues penalty applies that to each responds payment; M-R defendant late that is the maximum that can be agree against plaintiff’s posi- it. I with the levied finding supported by statutory tion, guage, legislative it to be lan- practical

intent, and considera- tions. DeKind, the Court confronted 801(2)

interpretation § issue for the Reciting statute, first time. the Court found " ” that penalty, it did not refer 'once-in-a-lifetime’ weekly compensation to the but rather Furthermore, benefits that were due. Id. at reasoned, the Court defendant’s contention that the statute is limited to a maximum contra- Legislature’s encourage dicted the prompt intent payments by employers by enact- ing meaningful financial cost for failure to do so. compared A potential limit could be minuscule to the paying out cost of workers’ years. money months, benefits for or even employer other, saved could be invested self-profitable concluding ways, noted, the Court Legislature would not have wanted to violated, reward an ued to who has or contin- violate, the law. agree prong I with the DeKind Court on this imposition analysis: §

its tiple penalties. mul allows unquestionably

The statute refers "weekly[7] sup benefits,” which ports plaintiff’s contention that each week of non penalties. recognized: As the Court incurs plain language § 801 “Under the 801(1): "Compensation paid promptly See also shall be person directly to the entitled .... shall be Thereafter paid weekly (Emphasis supplied.) installments.” *12 436 Mich J. Dissenting Opinion

provision is ensure that is to person directly promptly entitled DeKind at thereto.” majority the maxi- nonetheless finds that

The penalties $1,500, which allowed is mum amount of applies unpaid weekly "accrued” to both being those benefits—accrued employer Therefore, no tendered. never which matter how past-due payments

many missed, all weeks have been lumped together as

become eligible benefits, one for "accrued” penalty award. again, interpretation, problem is with this

The paying apparent. employer benefits If an misses pay simply week, due it can either one sixty days concern itself with the end of and not at penalties paying thereafter, for or it can sit back rendering single years without bene- months or violating knowing fit, it that the most must $1,500. is an award order each week holding employ- majority’s today will allow compensation obliga- ers to circumvent worker’s alarming aggrieved workers with tions towards provide aggrieved an worker ease. The incentive prompt payments, noted in as with 801(1), virtually To believe that a is nonexistent. would deter ma- maximum failing pay compensa- jority employers say naive, least. tion is majority appears objectionable to find possibility were de- that a worker whose benefits might ultimately layed year entitled to one penalties my inter- of dollars under thousands 801(2). Assuming employer, pretation §of that the during year, disputed in an has not the claim this penal- (during imposition appeal which time the Charpentier Corp, precluded, v Canteen ties Mich [1981]), agree App 700, I 705; 307 M-R v Cavanagh, hefty penalty potentially accumulations considering large possible. However, that such a undoubtedly the fact reflects award obligation flagrantly its has violated *13 and dozens occa- to its worker on dozens periods spanning months, two at least sions for dispro- repercussion is not harsh or this financial portionate. pursu- majority points that, to the fact

The also §801(6), may levied at ten interest be ant percent

per year from the date each on an award paid. payment until it is This indicates both is due 1) M-R Products would such as that defendants retaining gain benefit little financial from amass required statutorily interest due to the 2) Legislature payment, the increased and ago years of concern that rate a few out interest employers payments. delay compensation This not majority, assessment, would states the interest per- Legislature had intended needed if the be payment. every $1,500 for late benefit mit policy disagree. purposes, functions, and I §801(6) provision of the interest concerns behind 801(2) separate penalty provision § and and distinct. generally past-due payments im is

Interest on employers, punishment posed, but not as a the use of has benefited because employee, money to be due determined Norge employee it. Drake v had to do without Borg-Warner Corp, 464, 468; 116 Div, 367 Mich 801(2) (1962). hand, § On the other designed that to ensure assessment is compensation. prompt aggrieved receive workers McAvoy Co, 401 Mich H B Sherman See v (" (1977) object of the 'The 455; 258 NW2d provide Compensation com Act is to Workmen’s arising suffering disability persons pensation 436 Mich employment. compensation, to from their effective, Such provided promptly. obviously must be So ”) provides.’ steep day the act per unpaid $50 sharp weekly benefit constitutes a sluggish employers stimulus to punctual or insurers to be timely payments. Although that a the DeKind Court held worker 801(2), may § more it collect under also noted a the worker must file limitation: with every the bureau a a week that Thus, the Court determined missed. applies penalty provision only to "each in which beneñts are not injured peti- and for which an worker has ñled a nonpayment.” tion for a on the Id. at (Emphasis supplied.)

Although agree, hold, I and would so aggrieved last sentence of ployee entitles an em- up delinquent to collect for each *14 unpaid weekly today speak benefit, or I do not to petition-filing propriety require- the of DeKind’s ment, and need not address that issue due to the procedural history of this case. plaintiff sought penalty pay-

Here, Townsend Appeals only ments in the wcab and Court of for petitions penalty the filed the she bureau. The by $22,500, referee’s award of reinstated the Court Appeals, by multiplying was arrived at each of plaintiff’s petitions by penalty fifteen petition amount. Plaintiff did not file a for each required her, week that defendant failed to by as petitions requested DeKind; all but one of the periods encompassing several weeks.8 week, Because she did not seek a for each sought only original but affirmance referee’s instance, petition plaintiff For the bureau received one from on 14, 1984, 16, 1984, September covering April overdue from 13,1984. through August v M-R Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, plain- award, it need not be decided here whether required, filing tiff initial was her petition, filing petitions prerequi- as a continue collecting penalty payments. Consequently, site I express opinion relating prong no second analysis. of the DeKind plaintiff

Nevertheless, the instant file since did multiple petitions, I will the issue consider penalties properly she whether the was awarded on petitions of the basis submitted. plaintiff’s petitions

The wcab found that specific insufficiently support the award of mul- tiple penalties. panel petitions deemed the fatally particular they specify deficient because failed to plaintiff

week was due Appeals, did receive it. Like the Court of I reject this rationale. panel plaintiff that reasoned entitled single

only award because she filed "one nonspecific petition times,” which, several in es- having sence, was the same as filed one petition. just opposite However, is true. The by order issued referee reveals plaintiff by were filed and received September May bureau 1983 to 1985. In reality, each in the recorded referee’s (and reproduced schedule Court opinion) being was noted as received the bureau longer days following in each case no than a few expiration thirty-day nonpenalty period9 daily penalty after which the commenced. $50 argues Defendant it did not have sufficient specific notice because in weeks were not delineated *15 plaintiff’s petitions. That contention is without plaintiff petitions Here, merit. filed successive beginning in 1983 to enforce the referee’s 1982 17.287(801)(2). 418.801(2); MCL MSA Mich Cavanagh, pay weekly requiring bene- defendant

decision pro- question that defendant There is no fits. years adequate during its of notice vided with dealing plaintiff, its knew both that with and late or not to her were all.10 forwarded at below noted:

As Court case, however, plaintiff has this [Townsend] complained payments and consistently late about its continuously defendant of missed has notified penalty. . . . her intent seek payments and Emphasis supplied.] App 22. [173Mich ample notice, more and This defendant had obligation its to this failure meet its continued generously employee described as scandal- can ous. foregoing analysis, I would

On basis imposition pen- of a allows the hold alty upon or each week compensation payments to a worker weeks unpaid, portion affirm that Court holding. Boyle JJ., Archer, with concurred J._ attorney], you The Court: Mr. Smith served [defendant’s any with .... Bureau knowledge my To the I have received Mr. Smith: best been with .... notices and I have served