Opinion
No. 118048.
May 25, 2001.
COA: 228756, WCAC: 99-0321
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the October 23, 2000, order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
This case warrants further consideration. The WCAC reversed the magistrate's award of benefits. It found that the testimony of the treating doctors was not substantial evidence that plaintiff's degenerative back condition was aggravated in a significant manner by plaintiff's employment. It appears that the WCAC conducted a de novo review of the evidence, rather than determining whether the magistrate's decision was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
Contrary to the WCAC opinion, the evidence presented showed more than a mere shift from asymptomatic to symptomatic status. The magistrate's determination that plaintiff's condition was aggravated in a significant manner is supported by the testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses. The WCAC chose to replace the magistrate's findings, thereby misapprehending its administrative appellate role and the substantial evidence standard. See Mudel v Great AP Tea Co, 462 Mich. 691, 699-700, 703-704 (2000). Therefore, I would grant leave to appeal.
CAVANAGH, J., concurs with the statement of Kelly, J.