Toussaint v Blue Cross, 408 Mich. 579; 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980). The Court of Appeals found further that, as plaintiff had alleged that the grievance process was unfair, there existed a question of fact which entitled plaintiff to seek judicial review on the merits of her claim. Breish v Ring Screw Works, 397 Mich. 586; 248 N.W.2d 526 (1976); Fulghum v United Parcel Service, Inc, 130 Mich. App. 375; 343 N.W.2d 559 (1983). The Court of Appeals concurred with the verdict and the amount of the award.
Here, the finding of the grievance committees that plaintiffs seek to avoid is not one of constitutional magnitude or statutory construction; rather, it is a simple question of fact clearly within the competence of the grievance committees. See, also, Ivery v United States, 686 F.2d 410 (CA 6, 1982), especially Jones, J., concurring. [ 130 Mich. App. 375, 377-378; 343 N.W.2d 559 (1983).] Affirmed.
This principle likewise applies to factual determinations made during grievance hearings or arbitration proceedings. Fulghum v United Parcel Service, Inc, 130 Mich. App. 375, 377; 343 N.W.2d 559 (1983), aff'd 424 Mich. 89, 92; 378 N.W.2d 472 (1985); see Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co v Bissell, 220 Mich. 352, 354; 190 N.W. 283 (1922). In the present case, we hold that the circuit court correctly ruled that plaintiff was estopped from contesting the determinations made in the grievance proceeding.
The third ground, under MCR 2.116(C)(10), was that plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact. Judge Farmer denied this motion, subject to a right to refile if the Michigan Supreme Court decided favorably to defendants' position in the case of Fulghum v. United Parcel Service, Inc, 130 Mich. App. 375; 343 N.W.2d 559 (1983). Fulghum was affirmed in 424 Mich. 89; 378 N.W.2d 472 (1985).