Opinion
No. 124000.
June 25, 2004.
SC: 124000, COA: 246612, WCAC: 99-0292.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 16, 2003 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the majority and concurring opinions of the January 15, 2003 decision of the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission and REINSTATE the WCAC's February 13, 2002 decision. The Court of Appeals requirement that the WCAC award benefits "if plaintiff's employment aggravated or accelerated, and thus contributed to, his" lung disease is contrary to the plain language of MCL 418.401(2)(b) because under that provision aggravation or acceleration is relevant only in cases involving mental disabilities and conditions of the aging process. In this case, neither party argued that plaintiff's disease was either a mental disability or a condition of the aging process. Further, even if such arguments were presented by the parties, the Court of Appeals order remanding this case to the WCAC misapplied MCL 418.401(2)(b), which permits an award of benefits where plaintiff's employment aggravates or accelerates plaintiff's mental disability or condition of the aging process in a "significant manner." The WCAC's February 13, 2002 decision was supported by record evidence; therefore, under Mudel v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich. 691 (2000), the Court of Appeals was required to affirm the WCAC's decision.
Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ., would deny leave and do not believe peremptory disposition is appropriate.