 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Zarka v. State Employees' Retirement System11/25/2003
UNPUBLISHED
Respondent State Employees' Retirement System appeals by leave granted from the circuit court's order vacating the State Employees' Retirement Board's decision that denied petitioner Nagi Zarka's application for "duty-disability" retirement benefits and from the circuit court's order awarding petitioner attorney fees and costs associated with respondent's motion for a stay of enforcement of the circuit court's previous order. We reverse.
Respondent first argues that the circuit court erred in failing to follow binding precedents of this Court. We agree. Published opinions of the Michigan Court of Appeals have precedential effect under the rule of stare decisis. MCR 7.215(C)(2); Straman v Lewis , 220 Mich App 448, 451; 559 NW2d 405 (1996). The rule of stare decisis "requires courts to reach the same result when presented with the same or substantially similar issues in another case with different parties." Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing , 47 Mich App 720, 729; 209 NW2d 843 (1973). A case is stare decisis on a particular point of law if the issue was raised in the action and decided by the Court, and the decision was included in the opinion. Terra Energy, Ltd v Michigan , 241 Mich App 393, 399; 616 NW2d 691 (2000).
In the present case, the issue is whether petitioner, whose psychiatric condition renders him totally and permanently disabled, is entitled to duty disability retirement benefits under provisions of the State Employees' Retirement Act, MCL 38.1 et seq . During the administrative proceedings, respondent contended that petitioner's condition pre-existed petitioner's employment, and therefore petitioner could not satisfy the proximate cause element of MCL 38.21.
At the time in question, MCL 38.21, the "duty disability" provision, read:
Subject to the provisions of sections 33 and 34, upon the application of a member, or his department head, or the state personnel director, a member who becomes totally incapacitated for duty in the service of the state of Michigan without willful negligence on his part, by reason of a personal injury or disease, which the retirement board finds to have occurred as the natural and proximate result of the said member's actual performance of duty in the service of the state, shall be retired : Provided, The medical advisor after a medical examination of said member shall certify in writing that said member is mentally or physically totally incapacitated for the further performance of duty in the service of the state, and that such incapacity will probably be permanent, and that said member should be retired: And provided further, That the retirement board concurs in the recommendation of the medical advisor. [Emphasis supplied.]
In Buttleman v State Employees' Retirement System , 178 Mich App 688, 690-691; 444 NW2d 538 (1989), this Court addressed the proximate cause element of MCL 38.21, stating:
In this case, [MCL 38.21] is ambiguous in that it can support two interpretations: (1) that a claimant's incapacity must proximately result from actual performance of duty, or (2) that only the specific-event injury triggering onset of the disability must be the natural and proximate result of work-related duties. Accordingly, we defer to the statutory construction given by the retirement board as the enforcing agency. Howard Pore, Inc [ v State Comm'r of Revenue , 322 Mich 49, 66; 33 NW2d 657 (1948)]. The interpretation given by the retirement board makes duty-related proximate cause an element of a claimant's prima facie case for duty disability retirement benefits. MCL 38.21 .... See Stoneburg v State Employees' Retirement System, 139 Mich App 794, 800-801; 362 NW2d 878 (1984). Upho
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|