Opinion
No. 119966.
March 4, 2002.
COA: 235180, WCAC: 99-0017.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the August 9, 2001 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.
I concur in the decision reached by this Court to deny leave because the interpretation of MCL 418.372 given by the Court of Appeals in Gilbert v Second Injury Fund (On Remand), 244 Mich. App. 326 (2001), and relied upon by the WCAC here, is compelled by its language. Nevertheless, the result achieved is, in my judgment, so contrary to responsible public policy that I cannot believe such result to be anything other than inadvertent and unintended by any member of the Legislature. The present interpretation of MCL 418.372 would, in dual-employment worker's compensation cases, advantage an employer to the extent that the employer failed to report an employee's wages to the Internal Revenue Service. Where it is possible to avoid such an anomalous result through a reasonable reading of the law, I believe that we must do so. Where this is not possible, as I am persuaded is the present situation, we can merely commend such matter to the further attention of the Legislature. By this concurrence, I seek to do so.