Opinion
No. 112653.
March 31, 2000.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 1998 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Leave to Appeal Denied March 31, 2000:
Reported below: 230 Mich. App. 533.
Court of Appeals: 197697, Wayne CC: 95-527199-NO.
In this case, the issue is whether the defendant was the same entity as the employer for purposes of invoking the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). MCL 418.131 (1); MSA 17.237 (131)(1). This Court has held that summary disposition normally should not be granted on that question unless the evidence is reasonably susceptible of but a single inference. Clark v United Technologies Automotive, Inc, 459 Mich. 681, 694 (1999).
Here, the trial court denied defendant's effort to invoke the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA. On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied the economic realities test and reversed on the basis that plaintiff's employer and defendant were part of the same parent corporation. It remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant. Thus, the Court of Appeals decided as a matter of law that application of the economic realities test resulted in the two entities being one for worker's compensation purposes.
230 Mich. App. 533 (1998).
The issue, then, is whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, beyond that presented in Clark, upon which the trial court could grant summary disposition. I find that the inferences that can be drawn in this case have the same potential for conflict as they did in Clark. Therefore, I would grant leave to determine what level of evidence is sufficient to show as a matter of law that two entities are one for purposes of the WDCA.
I concur with the statement of Justice KELLY.