Case Information
*1 Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Chief Justice: Justices: Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: Corbin R. Davis prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. YOUNKIN V ZIMMER
Docket No. 149355. Decided November 18, 2014.
Lawrence Younkin brought an action in the Genesee Circuit Court against Michael
Zimmer, who was at that time the Executive Director of the Michigan Administrative Hearing
System, and Steven Hilfinger, who was at that time the Director of the Department of Licensing
and Regulatory Affairs. Plaintiff had injured his back while working in Flint and sought
workers’ compensation benefits. In September 2012, Zimmer had announced new efforts to
reorganize the Michigan Administrative Hearing System, including closing the Flint office that
previously handled workers’ compensation claims in that area and transferring those claims to an
office in Dimondale, approximately 70 miles away in Eaton County. In his action, plaintiff
sought a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to maintain the Genesee County hearing site.
The court, Geoffrey L. Neithercut, J., issued the writ, and defendants appealed. The Court of
Appeals, M. J. K ELLY , P.J., and F ORT H OOD , J. (C , J., dissenting), affirmed, holding
that the trial court had not abused its discretion.
In a unanimous memorandum opinion, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal and without oral argument, held :
The trial court abused its discretion by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to hold the hearing in Genesee County. To obtain a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff must show that he or she has a clear legal right to the performance of the specific duty sought to be compelled and that the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform it. MCL 418.851 provides that a workers’ compensation hearing must be held at the locality where the injury occurred. Defendants, in their official capacities as administrators of the workers’ compensation hearing system, interpreted the term “locality” as meaning a district or a definite region. This interpretation was entitled to respectful consideration. Because it did not conflict with the Legislature’s intent, there were no cogent reasons to overrule it. In accordance with their interpretation of the term, defendants divided the state into 11 reasonably located hearing districts, and workers’ compensation claims were assigned from definite regions of the state to one of those hearing district offices depending on where the injury occurred. Nothing in the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.101 et seq ., requires that there be a hearing site in every county. While the hearing should be held at a place convenient for parties and their witnesses, it was not unreasonable to conclude that the locality where the injury occurred in this case was Dimondale given the injury occurred in Genesee County and that county falls within *2 the Dimondale district. Although having the hearing in the latter rather than in the former venue would doubtlessly be less convenient for plaintiff, this would not constitute an unreasonable inconvenience. Accordingly, plaintiff did not have a clear legal right to a hearing in Genesee county, and defendants did not have a clear legal obligation to hold the hearing there.
Reversed and remanded.
©2014 State of Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Chief Justice: Justices: Opinion FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2014 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT
LAWRENCE YOUNKIN,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 149355 MICHAEL ZIMMER and STEVEN
HILFINGER,
Defendants-Appellants. BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
M EMORANDUM O PINION .
The issue here is whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to ensure that hearings in workers’ compensation cases are held in the county in which the alleged injury occurred. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Because we respectfully disagree, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for the entry of an order denying relief on plaintiff’s complaint for mandamus.
Plaintiff, who was injured while working in Genesee County, filed a workers’
compensation claim. While his claim was pending, defendants, in their capacity as
administrators of the workers’ compensation hearing system, advised plaintiff that the
Genesee County hearing site where plaintiff’s case was assigned would be closed and
that all pending cases from the county, including plaintiff’s, would be transferred to the
State Secondary Complex in Dimondale, which is about 70 miles from Genesee County
and located in Eaton County. Plaintiff brought this mandamus action to compel
defendants to maintain the Genesee County hearing site. The trial court granted
mandamus relief, and in a divided and published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Younkin v Zimmer
,
To obtain a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff must show that he or she has a clear
legal right to the performance of the specific duty sought to be compelled and that the
defendant has a clear legal duty to perform that duty.
In re MCI Telecom Complaint
, 460
Mich 396, 442-443;
MCL 418.851 provides that “[t]he [workers’ compensation] hearing shall be held
at the locality where the injury occurred.” As the Court of Appeals recognizes, the term
“locality” is defined as “a place or district.”
Younkin
,
In accordance with defendants’ interpretation of “locality” as meaning “district” or
“a definite region,” “defendants divided the state into several reasonably located hearing
districts and workers’ compensation claims are assigned from definite regions of the state
to particular hearing district offices” depending on “where the injury occurred.” ,
[I]n designating the appropriate venue for hearings in workers’
compensation cases, the Legislature did not specifically state that the
hearing must be held in the “city” or “county” where the injury occurred. If
that was the Legislature’s intention, it could have used those terms. See,
e.g., MCL 600.1621 and 600.1629. “A court must not judicially legislate
by adding into a statute provisions that the Legislature did not include.”
In
re Wayne Co Prosecutor
,
For these reasons, plaintiff does not have a clear legal right to a hearing in Genesee County and defendants do not have a clear legal obligation to hold the hearing in Genesee County. Thus, we believe the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to hold the hearing in that county. Accordingly, in *7 lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for the entry of an order denying relief on plaintiff’s complaint for mandamus.
Notes
[1] Defendant Michael Zimmer, as the Executive Director of the Michigan Administrative Hearing System, and defendant Steven Hilfinger, as the Director of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, accorded meaning to the term “locality.” Given that defendants were indisputably acting in their official capacities as heads of governmental agencies when they gave meaning to the term, and given that a governmental “agency’s interpretation is entitled to respectful consideration,” defendants’ interpretation of “locality” is entitled to “respectful consideration.”