In a split decision, the Supreme Court of Michigan has revisited the question of whether a professional athlete can sue for workers’ compensation benefits in a state where his team/employer is based, but he is no longer a resident.
In so ruling, the court declined to retroactively apply recent case law, which suggested that both conditions must be present for a suit to move forward.
Plaintiff Andre Bezeau, a professional hockey player, signed a three-year contract in 1998 with the Detroit Vipers, a professional hockey team owned by defendant Palace Sports & Entertainment.
At the time, Bezeau was a resident of Michigan, and the contract was signed in Michigan.
In June 2000, the plaintiff fell from a 45-foot ladder while working at his father’s roofing company in New Brunswick, Canada. As a result of the fall, he injured his groin, lower back, and right thigh. Bezeau stayed in New Brunswick to receive treatment for his injuries, and he became a resident of New Brunswick.
In October 2000, the Detroit Vipers loaned the plaintiff to the Providence Bruins, a professional hockey team located in Rhode Island. In the first game of the 2000-2001 season, which took place in Rhode Island, another player struck the plaintiff, aggravating his injury. Bezeau left the game and has been unable to play hockey since the incident.
In June 2001, the plaintiff applied for workers’ compensation benefits in Michigan. He claimed that he had developed osteitis pubis as a result of playing professional hockey. A hearing was held before a magistrate in the Workers’ Compensation Board of Magistrates. The magistrate ruled in February 2003 that although Bezeau was disabled, there was no persuasive evidence that the incident at the October 2000 hockey game in Rhode Island caused plaintiff’s disabling injuries or aggravated any preexisting injuries.
Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) , which reversed the magistrate’s findings. The WCAC panel found that the incident at the October 2000 hockey game was a contributing factor, among many, to the plaintiff’s disability. The WCAC granted the plaintiff an open award of benefits.
The defendant appealed the WCAC’s decision in the Court of Appeals. In February 2006, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion vacating the decision of the WCAC and remanding the case to the WCAC to “determine whether plaintiff asserted an ‘aggravation’ or ‘contribution’ theory at trial, whether such a theory was properly raised on appeal, and, if so, whether an award of benefits is proper under Rakestraw [v Gen Dynamics Land Systems, Inc, 469 Mich 220, 666 NW2d 199 (2003)].”
On remand from the Court of Appeals, the WCAC issued a decision in October 2006 remanding the case to the board of magistrates to determine whether the plaintiff’s condition after the October 2000 hockey-game incident was medically distinguishable from his condition before the incident.
Meanwhile, in May 2007, while the remand to the board of magistrates in the instant case was pending, the state’s Supreme Court issued the opinion in Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28; 732 NW2d 56 (2007) on the jurisdictional requirements for workers’ compensation claims brought in Michigan. In Karaczewski, the court stated that for Michigan workers’ compensation laws to apply to a claim for benefits, the injured employee must have been a resident of Michigan at the time of the injury and the contract for hire must have been made in Michigan.
This sparked an argument from the defendant that the board of magistrates did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff was a resident of New Brunswick at the time of the October 2000 incident. The magistrate agreed and dismissed Bezeau’s claim for benefits. Bezeau appealed to the WCAC, which affirmed the magistrate’s decision. He then applied for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which denied leave to appeal in an unpublished order.
The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider.
In its analysis, the high court noted that “in general, this court’s decisions are given full retroactive effect. However, there are exceptions to this rule. This court should adopt a more flexible approach if injustice would result from full retroactivity.
“In determining whether Karaczewski was incorrectly given retroactive effect, we must first answer the threshold question whether Karaczewski clearly established a new principle of law. The decision in Karaczewski to overrule Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515; 505 NW2d 544 (1993) established a new interpretation of MCL 418.845 that broke from the longstanding interpretation of the statute. Although the court interpreted the statute consistently with its plain language, the court’s interpretation established a new rule of law because it affected how the statute would be applied to parties in workers’ compensation cases in a way that was inconsistent with how the statute had been previously applied.”
Among the factors that favored the plaintiff was the fact that “there has been extensive reliance for 14 years on Boyd’s interpretation of MCL 418.845. In addition to reliance by the courts, insurance decisions have undoubtedly been predicated on this court’s longstanding interpretation of MCL 418.845 under Boyd. Nonresident injured employees, like plaintiff, who initially entered into contracts for hire in Michigan, but later agreed to work outside Michigan, have relied on the ability to obtain workers’ compensation benefits based on their employment relationship with Michigan employers. Prospective application acknowledges that reliance and assures the fair resolution of those pending workers’ compensation cases.
“Because the Karaczewski decision on retroactivity did not give due weight to the interests of employers and employees relying on the well-established law of Boyd and Roberts v I X L Glass Corp, 259 Mich 644; 244 NW 188 (1932), and because it did not give due weight to its effect on the administration of justice, we conclude that the decision to give retroactivity to Karaczewski was erroneous.”
Andre Bezeau v Palace Sports & Entertainment, INC.: S. Ct. Mich.: No. 137500, 2010 Mich. LEXIS 1656; 7/31/10
