*1 377 Mici-i 176. WEHMEIER v. E.W. WOOD COMPANY.
Decision of Court. Compensation—Lump Payment—Additional 1. Workmen’s Sum Payments. Medical compensation appeal dismissing ap- Order of workmen’s board plication payments acceptance for additional medical after of lump payment (CL 1948, 412.22). sum is affirmed §
Separate Opinion.
JJ.
Dethmers,
Smith,
O’Hara,
Payment—Discharge
2. Workmen’s
Compensation—Lump
of
Sum
Liability.
All
payments
compensation
workmen’s
of
deferred
lump
payment, approved by
compen-
sum
the workmen’s
payments
discharges
sation
board redeems all the
liability (CL
and its insurer
all
from
further
1948, § 41SMJ.
Construction—Lump
3. Same—Administrative
Sum Settlement.
repeated
frequent application
compensation
under
workmen’s
of
act with
for benefits
agency administering
approval
the act and
making
purpose
disapproved
were
rules
such
legislature is an
act
administrative construction
determining legislative intent
which must be considered when
[15]
[7]
[13]
[1-6,
Limit of
Specific
ALR 136.
58 Am Workmen’s
clusive or exclusive of
compensation acts.
Dissenting Opinion. Kavanagh, T. M. J.,C. and Souris and Adams, JJ.-' Compensation—Lump Payment—Medical Pay- 8. Workmen’s Sum ments—Weekly Payments. compensation department workmen’s authority has no under lump payment the sum compensation section the workmen’s of permit employer act to liability to redeem its medical for necessary services made plaintiff injury, because for of authority being specifically, redeem under such section redemption weekly limited to payments of for of (CL compensation 1948, 412.22). § Redeeming Same—Lump Payment Weekly Payments. 9. Sum payment Whether a compensation sum workmen’s be con- of by employer sented to (cid:127) under the clause the section first of Mich 176. compensation payment act workmen’s or such be directed of to be made under second clause such of section, only weekly payments compensation, not medical of payments, subject approval are involved and. are of compensation department (CL 1948, 412.22) workmen’s § Same—Lump Payment Weekly Payments—Medical 10. Sum of Payments. payments
Medical under the workmen’s act are not weekly payments, hence, not be redeemed reason of any authority authorising lump the act conferred of weekly payments sum compen- (CLS 1961, 412.4; sation 412.22). CL Same—Weekly Payments—Redemption—Medical Payments— Mentally Incompetent Employee. Redemption employer’s order pay- entire compensation may properly ments workmen’s be con- strued payments also, as a medical where statute authority no to redeem medical conferred future settlement, provide redemp- the order does not payments, tion medical and the circumstances were such as employee, mentally indicate that incompetent rendered *3 injury, the would remain in such condition the rest of (CLS 1961, 412.4; 1948, 412.22). his CL § § life Same—Redemption Weekly Payments—Construction 12. of of Statutes. compensation authorising The section the workmen’s act the of redemption payments they of of after had been continued 6 months not be construed as authorising redemption employer’s liability the an under the of act where such construction would be other than that which the explicitly provides (CL 1948, 412.22). act Interpretation. 13. Statutes—Construction—Administrative agency’s contrary An unambig- administrative continued action statutory language uous upon act is called to ad- of require Supreme duty minister does not violate Court to uphold construing the law when the statute. Compensation—Redemption Liability by Lump 14. Workmen’s of Payment—Approval—Report Sum of Medical Examination. compensation department requiring report Workmen’s rule aof physician approved employee, report licensed which must give findings examination, a recent to accom- defail of pany agreement to redeem or his of E. W. Wood Co. upon bearing the determina- a have presumably would insurer specific loss and departments to the nature as tion of permanent, total, partial, or total and disability whether redemption determining legitimate whether concern a weekly, approved should AACS, 1948, (CL §412.22; medical, §11408- .39). by Implication. 15. Statutes—Amendment by implication is not statutes or amendment alteration 25). (Const art favored Appeal Compensation Appeal from Workmen’s February Resubmitted 5, 1965. Board. Submitted (April No. 22. Docket July Calendar 26, 1965. February 50,798.) Decided No. guardian
Application Wehmeier, Victor H. mentally Young, incom- Lee Robert estate against employee, petent, W. Wood former employer, Company, Assur- Accident General Corporation, medical, insurer, for additional ance hospital surgical, than two filed more benefits, years Ref- made. order had been after prior redemption had no effect on order eree ruled provide medical care. defendants’ Workmen’s compensation appeal granted mo- board application tion for additional benefits. to dismiss appeals. Plaintiff Affirmed. propria persona, guard- Wehmeier, in
Victor H. mentally Young, ian of the estate of Robert Lee incompetent, plaintiff.
Lacey (Thaddeus counsel), Fellcer, é F. Jones for defendants.
Amici Curiae: King, JS.
Charles for American Mutual Insurance Company, Auto Alliance, Owners Insurance Citi- 176. jjens Company, and Automobile Insurance Mutual Michigan Liability Company. Mutual
Stephen Schlossberg, Fillion, A. Bernard I. John Ashe, Rossen, F. and Jordan for International Un- ion, UAW. Michigan Chapter,
J eróme W. Kelman, for Amer- Lawyers ican Trial Association. payment compen- After 71 weeks of hearing referee Broderick
sation, entered an order (September 6,1957) “that said to redeem employer’s weekly payments entire approved.” herein of $15,000 years appellant ap- More than two later filed an plication adjustment hearing of claim for weekly payments additional and medical benefits. plaintiff After pay- withdrew his claim for hearing ments, referee Broderick held “that September ordered entered herein on provide 1957had no effect on defendants’ medical care under section 4 of 2 of the work- men’s act.” After the hearing board reversed the ref granted eree and defendants’ motion to dismiss, this granted appellant’s request Court ap for leave to peal. July eighth On 1965, the brief filed, was including three amicus curiae briefs, one of which by “invitation.”1 1 “On order of (January the Chief 29, 19C5), Justice request of Auto Owners Company, Insurance Mutual Citizens Insurance Company Michigan Liability Company Mutual file amicus curiae granted, brief and the American Trial Law Association, Michigan chapter, through Silver, Howard yers_
president, is invited to file an amicus curiae brief if the as sociation desires; both days briefs to be filed within 30 from the date of request this order.” The Union, UAW, International granted was also and its amicus curiae brief was filed March *5 W. Wood by Opinion J. appeal question in this is: Did' the main jurisdiction lump make lack sum hoard benefits? settlement medical being provision, part §2, 22, of provides: compensation act, the workmen’s weekly payment any has been con- “Whenever the there- months, than 6 tinued for less lump may redeemed sum subject parties, approval to- of the compen- compensation commission, and said of sation may any any at time direct in commission special found which in case, if circumstances be its require pay- judgment ments due under that the deferred same, pres- this act be commuted on the per per worth thereof at 5 cent annum to 1 or ent lump payments, payments and that such more shall be made or the insurance company carrying risk, such or commissioner of may be.” insurance, as case 412.22 CL 17.172). (Stat Ann 1960 Eev Appellant states: question impression “This is one of first before regardless may
this Court and of what have been past, jurisdiction done in the commission lacks lump to make a sum settlement of medical benefits. [*] “The [*] section of the statute * * * long single of one sentence and consists contains a thought; namely, ity. that sum settlement of liabil- part The first sentence states effect may payments by agree- be redeemed second, ment. The of the sentence states that * * * * * * ¿Hrect ‘said commission * '* * * * * special if circumstances be found * * # * * * deferred be commuted * * * present only Avorth.’ on This is the pro- of the Avoikmen’s statute Avhich reading for a vides sum settlement and from a only section, it is obvious deals with one. [Feb.” 377
Opinion by Keely, thing—weekly payments pay- and the ‘deferred weekly payments.” course, are, ments’ referred to expresses approval appellant’s
The UAW interpretation as follows: *6 plaintiff appel- “The UAW is in accord with redemption lant that this not The section of the statute does * * * and should not with deal medical benefits. policy against lump public payments is sum payments period in favor of a over of time. This presents tive compelling justification legisla- a for the requirement that medical be benefits furnished they they when deemed are needed and that cannot be re- one sum.” Michigan Chapter of the American Trial Lawyers Association calls attention in its brief that “the settlement herein exceeded defendants’ ex- posure weekly payments by almost $2,850,” and question parties is no “there that the intended “weekly to include medical benefits”; that the words payment” nothing in section 22 “can mean but the earnings benefits based on two-thirds of not to ex- “Michigan ceed certain maximum,” and, therefore, A.T.L. submits that this Court Honorable should hold that medical not benefits are redeemable,” and states: long acceptance
“However, redemp- because of tion of medical and because it would unfair, be un- just, retroactively and even unethical to now restore right past requests the this to medical in cases A.T.L. pro- Honorable to enforce Court its decision spectively. precedents There are a number of Hospital, this. See Parker v. Port Huron 361 Mich 1; Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis Division National Company, Lead 358 Mich 510.”
Appellees, in their brief, call attention to the rules
compensation department
of the workmen’s
distin-
guishing
ad-
between
W. Wood Co.
Opinion
payments
have
which rules
been referred to
vanee
legislative
under the referral
statute
committees
emphasize legislative
provision,
assent to the
and2
by saying:
of medical
final settlement
always favored settlements of
“The law has
dis-
certainly provided
legislature
putes.
for final
disputes prior
to 1943. Such
settlement
valu-
litigants
compensation
right
able
to workmen’s
away
inference.
If it was
taken
would
directly.
finally
It
not done
done, it would be done
directly,
right
these matters
settle
so
always
pro-
been—in
first
found where
has
22 of
2.”
vision
curiae
American
submitted
amicus
In the brief
stated,
al, there
et
Alliance,
Mutual Insurance
department
has from
“the workmen’s
consistently
present day
that a
held
to the
employer’s
operates
terminate
pe-
during
benefits”;
for medical
*7
years
compensation act has
“the
20
riod of over
has
but not once
times,
at least 23
amended
been
liability
making
any
the
taken toward
action been
redeemable”; that if this
medical benefits
appeal
without
the
board
reverse
should
Court
only
providing
clearly
would
be
that our decision
impact
prospectively,
on
“the economic
enforced
employers
Michigan
their
insur-
reopening of such
of the wholesale
ance carriers
tremendous”;
long
and,
em-
would
closed cases
phasizing
future settlements would be discour-
they
aged
reversal,
state:
“During
years,
past
20,000
than
more
the
seven
by redemp-
settled
have been
cases
comnensation
hearings
presum-
redemptions,
would
tion; without
currently,
[14b]).]—Reporter.
CL
1948,
PA
1964,
24.78b
No
(Stat
Ann 1952 Rev
(Stat
Aim 1965 Gum
§
3.560[14b]).
Supp
3.500
[See,
377 Opinion by
required
ably
in
20,000.
have been
most of the
This
roughly
number
is
three times the
which
cases
actually
hearing during
period.
went to
the same
* *
#
interpret
permit-
[to
“To
it
do
statute as not
ting
benefits]
for medical
retroactively
prospectively
either
discourage
would
tend
making
in
settlements
the future.
in
As Chairman McAuliffe said
case
Bovill
part
[Bovill
Co.,
v.
and made a
Shell Oil
opinion herein]
board’s
: ‘No one would ever
entering
think of
an
into
redeem
part
open
possibility
case
and leave
of future
”
litigation over medical care.’
compensation appeal
The workmen’s
board in its
opinion on review calls attention that since our de
Fosterling (1959),
in Lahti
cision
The Lahti that the 1955 hospital op- in medical amendment re benefits retroactively, which, states, erates board precipitated way any this similar cases, did not in apply redemption provision
refer to or to the considering. are now we
Appellees disagree appellant’s with contention provisions part and second that both the first 2, partial provide 22, settlement: on a One vol- untary involuntary basis and the other on an basis. provision 2, 22,
The first which has come “redemptions” provides known as be as follows: any payment been “Whenever has con- than 6 months, tinued for not less there- may redeemed of a subject by agreement parties, approval to the commission.” what which hospital pensation Sess], (Syllabus 2.) so used No services, must be filed employee be termed ‘sick pt for a limited loses prescribing §§4, 15, benefits,’ consequence as amended period injured time within which a claim for com- . such as after employee (PA of his medical, PA injury injury and the term surgical but No . includes [1st 245).” . Ex *9 186 377 Mich Opinion J. “lump provision, generally known second provides: advances,” sum may any at time “Said commission special any be case, direct if circumstances found judgment require which in deferred that the same, payments under this act be commuted due present per per on the thereof at 5 cent an- worth lump payments.” num to 1 or more sum Co., In Motor Catina Hudson Car 272 v. we 377, 382, held: payments “A direction the board that deferred lump payments, more commuted to one or sum (CL provision § under the second 1929, § of CL 5452 [CL Ann 1948, 412.22, Stat 1960 Rev 17.172]), presents a no obstacle to further review weekly payments upon showing change a lump
condition. The order for the sum settlement in the instant case was also made under this second provision. lump Had there a contract a been parties ap- sum settlement entered into proved by department, in accordance with the provision payment first section, this made accordingly, would have been re- discharged deemed and defendants from further liability.” appellant’s The fact construction is not cor- proven by following rect is further from Marks Co., v. Otis Elevator 276 Mich 75, 78: lump a “When sum settlement is made in accord- portion ance with the first of section the em- ployee payment advantage large has the of a immediate particular furnishing case, this capital of the business; hand, conduct a on the other taking or his insurer is certain risk. employee may entirely The ability, recover from all dis- may die, or he or he earn much larger average wage sum than at the his time long injury, before the sum would have Í966] W. E. Wood Co. Opinion by Kelly, paid weekly pay- exhausted, been had it been out in ments. do not We find that the of such in final settlement of all public against policy spirit or the the act. portion provides first for such settle- necessary ap- ment. It is that such settlement be proved by in liability department. approved As it was so *10 case, the instant constituted a from payments.” for further legislature changing the administrative creating compensation structure and the workmen’s department4 compensation appeal and workmen’s granted powers agencies board5 various to these recognized purposes the difference in the between provisions part § the first and second 2, 22, compensation the workmen’s act, when it stated: processing “Sec. 5. The director shall direct the approval rejection by hearing for all or referees of agreements provisions filed under the of section 22 of 2 of Act No 10 of the Public Acts of the First being Extra Session of 1912, amended, as Compiled section 412.22 of the of 1948, Laws granting also processing rejecting direct the hearing petitions referees of all for the com- mutation of deferred in a sum filed pursuant § to said section 22.” CLS 408.5 (Stat 17.6[11]). § Ann 1960 Eev powers rule-making given Pursuant to the to the department (CL § [Stat 1948, 413.3 Ann 1960 Eev 17.176]), § stating: Eule 8 was created, application compen-
“An for advance duplicate sation must be submitted on form 108. company employer If the insurance or self-insured approve application, refuses to the matter will hearing be set to determine whether or not the CLS CLS 1961, 1961, § § 408.1 408.9 (Stat (Stat Aim 1960 Eev Ann 1960 Eev § 17.6 17.6[7]). [15]). Opinion application granted. pay- should be An advance dependent a ment of to minor will not approved legal guardian or ordered until has (1959 408.38.) appointed.” §17 AACS, been provides: 9, the rule, Rule “Any agreement redeem insurer or self-insured must be submitted form R.E.D. on must be accom- panied report physician ap- from a licensed proved employee giving findings in detail the (1959 408.39.) of a recent examination.” R AACS,
In accord with PA No amended, these previous rules, and rules, were submitted6 to the legislature appropriate legis and forwarded to the appellees lative committee, and call to our attention legislative that “there has been no action on these indicating legislature thought rules that the that the compensation department workmen’s or workmen’s compensation appeal acting beyond board authority recognizing purposes the distinct *11 provisions part the two of section 22 of 2.” legislature
In 1912 when our determined it would provide regular injured to the employee, recognized it also the fact that in certain helpful cases sum settlement would be more injured employee. purpose recognized Harrington This we in Department Industry, Labor & 252 Mich 87, 89, when we said: “Compensation private is not a matter between employer employee. public is interested. policy The act declares State that the burden personal industrial injuries accidental shall general borne public. not industries, 6 Seo, 24.781; specifically, 8b, supra cited as CLS 1961 § (Stat Ann 1961 Bev 3.560[14b]).—Beporter. (cid:127)1966] W. Wood Co. Opinion policy, provides To effectuate this the act for fre- quent quarterly, payments, weekly, regular monthly, or annually. opposes payments It gross cumstances.’ except ‘special or in sum, certain cir- ” prevent hasty legislature pro- decision, To binding agreement absolving vided that no final and from all future could be en- elapsed tered into until six months had after the injury, safeguard employee against and, agreement, provided any agree- unwise such approval ment must receive the of the referee and appeal board. years For over 30 between 1912 and 1943 there many redemptions were under section 22 and no one any has redemptions nor claimed, no one can claim, of those involving were not a final settlement liability, question all authority and no one could or did the ap-
of the referee and board to prove such settlements. portions quoted of section 22 above which right scope
control the have re- substantially mained intact, without amendment, present from the date of enactment down to the By date. PA No 148,the section was amended by adding requirements redemption proce- for the subsequently This dure. amendment deleted in toto PA 1943, No 245. Neither of these amend- any way quoted ments por- affected the above tions of the statute now before this Court on this appeal. agree compensation with ap- We the workmen’s
peal legis- board’s conclusion that to hold that only permit lature intended to a settlement of a leaving question case while *12 of medical care unsolved, “would rob the section of meaning and usefulness.” Mich by Kelly, Opinion enlargement, agree the mere that
We cannot rights employee’s care to medical the legislature beyond to take intended months, six the right the to the board from the referee and approve including medical ben- a final settlement legislature intend that the continued so efits and hospital and re medical benefits as amendments subsequent to 1943. If had been made were legislature, thought the same the and desire expressed. definitely clearly have would been expression Co., Otis Elevator from Marks v. The supra, that of a sum in final the public against policy settlement of all is Chapter evidently by Michigan shared Lawyers Association, Trial as evidenced American following from its amicus curiae brief: question no case, “In there is that the the instant parties medical intended include benefits. exposure the defendants’ settlement herein exceeded The clear $2,850. almost parties out all of de- intention close liability. fendants’ redemptions recognized, their is well serve “As allowing compromises important function in most Every cases. business or difficult borderline dispute every on occasion has man, citizen, Compromise .quarrel else. is the lu- with someone people permits to overcome interhuman bricant frictions. No lawyers about than one knows better doing inci- the uncertainties battle and cost redemptions com- are Almost all thereto. dental exposure promises. is estimated The defendants’ plaintiffs the chances of dollars cents by litigation collecting care- are thereof all or past fully weighed. and future medical The cost expo- computing parties included plaintiff compromise that extricates sure. from risky highly gamble, dangerous from the redemption. philosophy is the all,’ of ‘winner take *13 191 Wood W. v. Kelly, Opinion by J. wrong and unfair, indecent unethical, It would plaintiffs benefits obtain medical to to now allow redemp away bargained a they at previously which risk policy favor elimination should tion. Public gamble litigation. v. Otis Elevator In Marks in com workmen’s that in held 75, it was Co. 276 Mich against compromises not pensation are cases such policy.” public not does share UAW, Union, The International policy, by public follow- as in re shown view this ing from brief: its payments lump public policy against is sum “The period payments a of time. over
and in favor This leg- justification compelling presents requirement fur- medical benefits be islative nished when they they cannot needed and are * * * sum. be redeemed one speculation particular amount of “Aside from pol- general there is benefits, in medical involved icy to a more opposed any regular as in favor employee an because dissipate likely money ais his when there payment.” lump sum injured question as what best leg- question by employee to be answered is a not this islature and Court. con have considered the
In several decisions we designated to enforce an act those struction of important fact to be considered us legislative intent and our determination construc of the statute.7 tion consistently through repeatedly
The fact that years, appeal referees and con- boards have provision strued the consideration in now under Holbrook, 33; Wyandotte Lorraine 373 Mich Cab Savings v. City 99. Bank State Detroit, Banking Commissioner, 379; People 347 Mich Mich
Opinion by n same way present appeal as the board has so con- coupled appeal, strued it in with the this additional n factthat through years legislature has these objected not trary, construction, to that to the con- but, given silence,
has assent causes us entering conclude the board did err following order: hearing ordered, “It is that the decision of the *14 hereby this, referee cause shall be and same is and; reversed defendants’ motion to dismiss granted.” Affirmed. No costs. and O’Hara, concurred JJ., Dethmers, Smith
with J. J., concurred result. Black, (dissenting). May J. 1, On 1956, while Souris, employ in the Company, of defendant E.W. Wood Young compensable injury Robert Lee suffered á weekly compensation for which he pay- received September day ments until 6, 1957. On that Compensation department workmen’s entered following redemption order: agreement employer’s “The to redeem the entire injury plaintiff for an sustained on single payment weekly pay- '5-1-56 in lieu of having ments hearing been considered referee department the workmen’s appearing agreement ap- that said should be: proved ; agreement “Therefore, it is ordered that said employer’s redeem entire eor ap- herein the payment of $15,000be: ‘ proved; ,. ( .. . . .... W. E. Wood Dissenting by Somas, Opinion paid “It is further ordered that he said sum follows: directly attorney(s)
$2,500 Z. Millen, to Carl plaintiff legal rendered; for all services in7 cluding with; expenses in connection there- directly to $..... ............................. type none) expenses (specify for medical directly plaintiff, being $12,500 balance; to the (s) “It further ordered that defendant shall also complete weekly compensation per September 1957; week until $34 pay “It is further ordered defendant shall transcript hearing the cost of the herein.” (Emphasis added.) liability, to redeem referred to in signed by order, was defendants Young’s guardian August Robert Lee then on and reads as follows: Young employee “Robert L. E.W. Wood Co. and on or about 5-1-56 he received an injury arising out of and in the course his em- ployment injury weekly and that as a result of such *15 (him) by employer have been made to the for not less than months, that: On 5-1-56 plaintiff working a sustained fractured skull while Compensation paid for defendant. has been to him per at rate the of week, over that $34 time. Plain- adjudged tiff mentally incompetent has been a person plaintiff and it is now the decision of the through legal guardian, Betty his H. Crooks, to any may against settle claim which he have defend- pursuant probate ant to an order of the court in proceeds order to invest the in a home and income producing property plain- can which be used for the support. tiff’s “(In space fully following the above state the compensation paid facts: total amount of to date, present employee, disability the the reasons Souris, by Dissenting Opinion liability, redemption and the desiring of
for upon approval paid this agreed of to be amount department.) agreement by the parties agreed that between the it is “Wherefore, department may order in this cause enter the providing with shall be forth $15,000 of that the sum Betty employer paid by Crooks, H. the upon Young, that guardian L. M. I. and of Robert employer payment the the for of the such injury compensation payment shall be said part of the first sec in accordance with redeemed tion 22 of compensation part 2 of workmen’s the act.”1 just quoted agreement the on filed briefs appeal parties agree that the the
this indicate that pursuant the first was entered order com- 22 of The 2 of the workmen’s clause pensation opinion filed act. is its view. Section
board confirms this entirety relied the clause follows, read upon as being authority for order as italicized: payment any Whenever has been “Sec 22. 6 months, continued not less than may be redeemed therefor parties, subject sum compensation approval commission, and said may any at commission time direct any special which case, if circumstances be found require judgment in its that the deferred same,
*16 payments present under thereof act be on the due this commuted per per cent annum to worth at 5 payments, pay- 1 or more such shall made ments or the insur- carrying company risk, ance or commissioner such the ease be.” CL 412.22 insurance, (Stat 17.172). Rev Ann 1960 [1] CL 1948, §412.22 (Stat Ann [1960] Rev § 17.172).—Reporter. IV. 195 Wood Co. Wehmeiek Souris, Dissenting Opinion by plaintiff, dispute arose when succes- Tbe instant Young, April, Lee filed guardian of Robert sor adjustment hearing application and of for 1960, an payments seeking, for medical and alia, inter claim, alleged hospital Plaintiff ward. treatment of his compensation department had workmen’s that the permit authority, defendant 22, no to under section made for medical services redeem injury. necessary plaintiff I of for because his agree. provides language clear, is and of the statute The payment,” any “weekly regard “liabil with of ity be redeemed therefor express is 22 terms Thus, section sum”.2 weekly redemption compensa only
authority of for weekly payments.3 are Medical tion statutory au- payments4 therefore, there is no and, that said equally “it. ordered redemption order clear: is is The weelcly pay- employer’s entire to redeem for $15,000 approved;”. (Emphasis by payment of be: ments herein added.) second clause section might note that be well It authority, as payments” is “deferred dealing commutation of with clause, only for the first is the payments. two clauses is that while under distinction between the obtained, employee employer must be first, of both the consent employer’s an there is no need for the consent to the second under sought by employee, pay department, order of the that deferred payments. more McMullen be commuted to one or ments (1919), Anderson Construction Co. Mich 586. And see v. Gavette v. tofore Equipment (1936), Clark Co. 278 Mich “We here 497: have procedures the line of between two held that demarcation by approved agreement on the settlement made or award whether Grycan cases]”; (1939), Motor petition, [citing v. Ford 291 Mich 241, their “Proceedings weekly payments, for 248: special cireumstanees, under of a commutation fund, creation purchase annuity, subject or for the of an trust approval added.) are to the department industry.” (Emphasis labor and see, currently, 412.22, And 44 CL as PA amended (Stat 17.172). Ann .1965, Supp No 1965 Cum statutory dealing provision with of medical services thusly: furnish, furnished, read “The shall cause to be employee personal injury arising to an the seivices and medicines or who receives a out of medical, employment, surgical course hospital his reasonable recognized other attendance or treatment by first 6 months legal, they the laws of this State needed, when are for the injury after and thereafter for such additional 6
Ü)6 377 Mich Dissenting by Soltéis, Opinion J. tbority redemption.5 for their in case, amicus filed of the briefs this
At least one group in- of of a workmen’s on behalf permit redemption candidly that to admits surers, may in Such commission its discretion order. periods as the month only upon request granted written periods shall be 6 month additional period for and after the employee commission each of to the the objections given opportunity an to file employer thereto insurer has been or his sujjply employer also to thereon. The shall and to be heard limbs, eyes, service, crutches, artificial injured employee dental such teeth, eye glasses, may from the effects appliances hearing apparatus other as and such reasonably possible, cure, and relieve necessary so far as be neglect injury. employer fail, If the shall of the for employee shall be reimbursed the reasonable do such refuse so to same, by providing in the an by his behalf expense or on incurred 1961, (Stat Ann 412.4 1960 Rev of the commission.” CLS award See, currently, §412.4, PA as amended §17.154). CLS 17.154, Supp 17.154[1]). (Stat 1965 Cum That 1965, such 44 Ann No §§ * * * attendance or treatment” are medicines “services redeemable, 22 in as is “weekly payments”, referred to the obvious. 5 statutory authority for of there no Since exists benefits, consideration, liability provide medical the employer’s Kelly’s case, opinion of the and in briefs filed this Mr. Justice intention all redemption, namely, regard parties with to such that of the liability redeemed, that for medical services parties intended having Justice been raised The issue irrelevant. per- record in Wehmeier does not that the this case of well to note be suasively support finding liability parties that intended that for the be redeemed. medical services $15,000 for the settlement exceeded (1) is said that because It employer’s exposure to lia- $2,850 present worth of the the some liability employer must that have intended bility, it follows that the also, it would never have be redeemed else medieal services for future agreed payment. upon But is based the “excessive” this to such redemption, Sep- employer of the date of assumption tember payment had been the that as 6, 1957, at most a for more weeks of it had fact, however, Young per Mr. $34 at adjudged week. As a matter by Wayne county mentally incompetent probate strong August was a that 1956. Thus there likelihood court on department totally Young been found to be would have Mr. and disabled, permanently whieh case defendant’s only extending -weeks, weekly payments instead of could have employee years who was 38 rest of the life of this for the extended old at the time 412.9, injury in 412.10 1956. CLS his §§ 17.159, 17.160). Redemption Ann 1960 Rev of medical (Stat §§ got bargain. aside, defendant August 12, 1957, redemption hearing on then (2) held At the attorney Young present. representing guardian Mr. was not Young alleged Mr. his wife guardian present, as were Young Young re (see [1965], [1963], 110; In Estate represented by 106)) also the latter of whom was 376 Mich concerning scope attorney. guardian’s The brief discussion Í966] W. Í97 Wood "Wehmeibr. Souris, Dissenting Opinion by under section this Court benefits medical statutory language to to construe bave (cid:127)would provides: explicitly which it than that other mean ‘weekly question words whether the is, “So literally, includ- as not payment’ are to be construed alleged rights of the on the centered proposed wife: assume, presuming Young, you appreciate, I "Mr. Jones: Mrs. commission, and the approval of the receives this settlement something guardian, should money paid to Mrs. Crooks injury that he your happen husband as a result this unforeseen *18 you might had under received, any also have benefits that that has you wiped out this settlement: compensation law are also that? understand Yes, I understand that. "A. any you be entitled to benefits as “Mr. Jones: You know wouldn’t approved, any this benefit in the event settlement is his widow the week? probate mean court? "A. You "Mr. Jones: weekly No, the benefit that he is—strike that. law, something your happen to should “Under the die, you, widow, to as a would be entitled husband and he should weekly time, you period providing could establish for a benefits injuries Now, by doing received. was a result of the the death that it this your husband, lump sum, anything happen way getting this if should to rights you any may also; that closes out have there you understand that? do Any rights compensation. to “The Referee: Any rights compensation. "Mr. Jones: "A. Oh, I understand that.” hearing in is no intimation record that it was intended There liability for medieal services be redeemed. that redemption in (3) referee who handled the 1957 also heard the provision Young Mr. application for medieal services to later redemption held, April, that “the order entered herein on (sic) (sie) (sic) September 6, bility no had affect on defendants lia- part provide medieal care under section 4 of 2 of the work- present compensation act.” Thus the official was at who men’s hearing redemption in the order resulted concluded that to which liability provide not absolve defendants from did medieal order services Young. for Mr. Finally, argued persuasively parties it in- (4) how can be that any liability plaintiff tended to redeem when conceivable of defendants to said, redemption language order itself as free of ambi- any seen, to redeem the guity being approved by I have that what was the order agreement employer’s liability an was “entire weekly payments”. parties liability Had the intended that for medieal (which services, view, to be redeemed services was also defendant’s economically significant are one of the most liabilities to which em- act), exposed expeet they ployers are under the one would that would sought recognition explicit this fact in have order. They did not. 3?7 Í76. Í98 Dissenting Opinion by Soubis, liablity ‘therefore’ that the ing benefits, so medical include such redeemed does can be which * * * benefits. to be is the statute words, “In other any weekly pay- mean ‘whenever construed to ment has been the months, may than six for not less continued payments] liability such [for redeemed.’ that ‘whenever to mean to be construed “Or any weekly payment for not less continued been has act] [under liability this months,
than six be ” redeemed.’ legislature’s ambiguity Despite in the lack approved argued language, redemption an it nonetheless agreement an em ends under liability, including ployer’s med entire cites Catina Thus, Mr. Justice ical services. v. Kelly (1935), 272 Mich Hudson Motor Car (1936), 276 Mich Elevator Co. Marks v. Otis language the effect that an which contain both of approved redemption any
agreement terminates employer. This further on the quite decisions, for time those true at the was then required to furnish medical days,6 redemp awhile than 90 for no more services into not be entered until at tion could *19 injury. when Thus, after least six months approved an re decided, were Catina and Marks demption agreement with re did end gard come which would otherwise have to redemption not case date. after Such due required employer may to be furnish now, when an employee’s of an life. for the rest medical services § No 44 1965, as amended PA 1961, 412.4, CLS 17.154). Supp (Stat Nor has such Ann 1965 Cum ment had three PA [6] Originally 1919, No 64. weeks; by been extended to 90 medieal the time of the services were days. Catina and PA required [1912] Maries (1st to be furnished Cases this Ex Sess), require- No 10; 199 W. E. Wood Wehmeieb Souris, Dissenting Opinion legislature when the first 1943, since ease been required fur- be to might employer an provided for a an injured employee to services medical nish from the date six months extending beyond period No 245. PA injury. his depart- workmen’s compensation 1943, the Since agree- regard to has continued ment from liabil- only an employer absolving ments from but also weekly payments, further ity It is argued payments. further medical liability for implementation administrative extended that this the statutory approve 22 that we requires which has implementation upon interpretation where an administra- This is case founded. been to stat- unambiguous contrary has acted agency tive law, uphold to duty It is our utory language. an agency violation continued and its departure to our me to mandate not seem does State People Holbrook (1964), See this course. from not moved by Court was so where the history disregard of administrative a considerable to give commands as unlaw- statutory of explicit imprimature. its ful practice department that because argued It is submitted R (1959 AACS, 408.39) legislat Rule no with ure,7 regard and the took action legislature in effect rule, silently the legislature to such of liabil permit amended section while un for medical benefits even leaving ity limits redemption which language changed benefits. Rule 9 reads: in- to redeem the “Any must submitted surer self-insured [14b], 3.560[14e]), See CLS §§ 24.78b, 24.78e (Stat Ann 1961 Kev §§3.560 *20 377 Opinion ToySotjp.is, Dissenting agreement must accom- be form R.E.D. on ap- physician report panied a a from licensed findings employee giving proved detail the of a recent examination.” legislature
Presumably, view, in defendants’ requirement that from inferred have should employee medical examination there connection agreement abe that the redeem, with an employ- might terminate the therefore legis- But the benefits. for medical er’s lature might that the re- assumed have also to de- examination was quirement of medical a questions nature precisely as the such termine disability partial, specific whether loss, a or permanent, of which have total and total, or bearing an em- benefits to which on the a would, ployee all of which entitled, department legitimate be concern therefore, redemption agreement determining a whether approved. with This views disfavor State should be any attempt by implica-
to alter amend statutes predecessors. art Const, tion, see say unambiguous being that are asked to Yet here we namely, redemption agree- legislative language, that pay- only weekly compensation may cover ments change impliedly without ments, amended, has been subsequent legislative language, act in the a by legislative to act in the face failure but ambiguous department’s
language of the 9. If Rule longer legisla- this, no we were concede would power. repository legislative ture the sole redemption agree- argued It is also unless liability for ment medical as well ended services weekly compensation, no ever would agreement. consent to such an However it is not to the case us. be, relevant now before legislature provided redemption weekly com- *21 Wood W. Wehmeiee, Dissenting Opinion J. Soijeis, payments; pensation are not such medical services statutory payments; there is no author- therefore, for medical serv- ization preached, but did not board ices. As practice, in believe that Wehmeier, this ease “We legal right adjust have no moral or the statute we to make the case.” so as it fit The award should be reversed and the case re- plaintiff. manded. Costs T. M. Adams, J., concurred J.,C. Kavanagh, Souris, with