The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in six cases on Wednesday, May 4, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Supreme Court courtroom on the 6th floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice, 925 W. Ottawa, Lansing. Oral arguments will be livestreamed from the MSC website.
The schedule of arguments (with specific dates and times for each case) are posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page (www.courts.michi gan.gov/courts/supreme-court/schedule-of-oral-arguments).
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys.
Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
162485 Helen Jordan (attorney Jacob Bender)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Workers Comp Appellate Commission)
Department of Health and Human Services, (attorney William Selesky)
f/k/a Department of Mental Health,
Defendant-Appellee.
While the plaintiff was employed by defendant Department of Health and Human Services, she suffered a work-related back injury in 1995. Ever since, she has been prescribed opioids by health professionals to treat back and leg pain. The plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits for 20 years until 2015, when the defendant terminated the benefits after having her undergo independent medical examinations, including an examination by Dr. Philip J. Mayer. The plaintiff challenged the termination. In 2017, a magistrate found that the plaintiff was not entitled to benefits because her loss of wage-earning capacity was unrelated to her work injury, but was due to chronic opioid use. The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC) reversed the magistrate’s decision, concluding that the plaintiff was disabled because of her use of prescribed opioids, that her opioid use was directly traceable to alleviating symptoms connected to the injuries sustained in the 1995 work incident, and that the treatment with opioids was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed the MCAC, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant consistent with the magistrate’s ruling. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the rationale of Staggs v Genesee Dist Library, 197 Mich App 571, 576 (1992), when it distinguished Staggs on the basis that it involved one-time treatment rather than ongoing treatment; (2) whether the magistrate’s decision to recognize that appellant has suffered a “loss of wage earning capacity” can be reconciled with the magistrate’s decision to “give greater weight to Dr. Mayer’s findings” when his findings included that there was “no need for work restrictions”; and (3) the extent to which these questions can be resolved on appeal when applying the proper standards of review between the magistrate, the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, and the judiciary, or if they must be resolved by the magistrate in the first instance.
—————
163807
In re Baby Boy Doe, Minor.
Peter Kruithoff, (attorney Peter Kruithoff)
Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kalamazoo CC - Phillips, J.)
Catholic Charities of West Michigan, (attorney Timothy Monsma)
Respondent-Appellant,
and
Adoptive Parent Number 1 and Adoptive Parent Number 2, Liisa Speaker)
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Three days after Baby Boy Doe’s birth on August 9, 2018, his mother surrendered him to a Grand Rapids hospital. The respondent, a nonprofit child-placement agency, placed the baby with prospective adoptive parents. In September 2018, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of the surrendering mother and the nonsurrendering father (the petitioner). The adoption became final on February 12, 2019. Meanwhile, a divorce action in Ottawa County was pending between the mother and the petitioner. In his complaint filed on August 8, 2018, the petitioner requested custody of his then unborn child. The Ottawa court entered ex parte orders for DNA testing of the baby and prohibited any action pertaining to the permanent placement or adoption of the child. In 2019, in the Ottawa County divorce action, before the adoption became final, the petitioner subpoenaed the respondent for records pertaining to Baby Boy Doe’s birth and adoption. The Ottawa court ordered the records to be produced, with redaction of information identifying the adoptive parents. In October 2019, the petitioner filed a motion in the Kalamazoo court to unseal the adoption file and reinstate his parental rights to the child. The court denied the motion, concluding that the petitioner received legal notice of the newborn’s surrender and he was not entitled to unseal the adoption records. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 published opinion, vacated the Kalamazoo court’s order denying the petitioner’s motion to unseal the adoption records, vacated the order terminating his parental rights, reversed the court’s ruling that his parental rights should be terminated, and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether a complaint for divorce that seeks custody of an unborn child qualifies as a petition to gain custody of a newborn under the Safe Delivery of Newborns Law (SDNL), MCL 712.1 et seq., which requires the petition of a nonsurrendering parent to be filed “[n]ot later than 28 days after notice of surrender of a newborn has been published,” MCL 712.10(1); and (2) whether the application of the SDNL violates the due process rights of an undisclosed father. See In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014).
—————
160495
Cleveland Stegall, (attorney Deborah Gordon)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland - Anderson, M.)
Resource Technology Corporation, (attorney Werner Thomas)
d/b/a Brightwing, and FCA US, LLC, (attorney Daniel Bretz)
Defendants-Appellees.
The plaintiff was fired from his position at FCA US, LLC, where he was working through staffing agency Resource Technology Corporation, d/b/a Brightwing. He filed a lawsuit against FCA and Brightwing, alleging retaliatory termination under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and termination in violation of public policy. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for summary disposition, holding that the public policy claim was preempted by the WPA and that the WPA claim against Brightwing failed because the plaintiff did not have evidence of an adverse employment action by Brightwing and could not prove causation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2-1 unpublished opinion. The Court of Appeals majority held that the plaintiff failed to support a public policy claim regardless of whether it was preempted and failed to create an issue of fact as to causation on the WPA claim. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the defendants were entitled to summary disposition of the plaintiff’s claim that he was discharged in violation of public policy.
Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Afternoon Session – 11:40 a.m.
163667
People of the State of Michigan, (attorney Christopher Kessel)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Genesee CC - Kelly, E.)
v
Nancy Peeler, (attorney Harold Gurewitz)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant is facing criminal charges as a result of her alleged involvement in the Flint water crisis. Genesee Circuit Judge David Newblatt, acting as a one-person grand jury under MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4, issued a felony indictment against the defendant. The defendant argues that she has a statutory right under MCL 767.4 to a preliminary examination, but the circuit court denied her motion to remand her case to the district court for a preliminary examination. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether a defendant charged with a felony after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination.
—————
164191
People of the State of Michigan, (attorney Christopher Kessel)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Bypass Application)
(Genesee CC - Kelly, E)
Nicholas Lyon, (attorney Chip Chamberlain
Defendant-Appellant. John Bursch
The defendant is facing criminal charges as a result of his alleged involvement in the Flint water crisis. Genesee Circuit Judge David Newblatt, acting as a one-person grand jury under MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4, issued a felony indictment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that he has a statutory right under MCL 767.4 to a preliminary examination and also asserting constitutional violations. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendant filed an interlocutory application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals. He then filed in the Supreme Court an application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violate Michigan’s constitutional requirement of separation of powers, Mich Const 1963, art III, § 2; (2) whether those statutes confer charging authority on a member of the judiciary; (3) whether a defendant charged after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination; and (4) whether the proceedings conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 violated due process, Mich Const 1963, art I, § 17.
—————
163672
People of the State of Michigan, Christopher Kessel
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Genesee CC - Kelly, E.)
Richard Louis Baird, (attorney Anastase Markou
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant is facing criminal charges as a result of his alleged involvement in the Flint water crisis. Genesee Circuit Judge David Newblatt, acting as a one-person grand jury under MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4, has made a finding of probable cause and issued a felony indictment against the defendant. The defendant argues that he has a statutory right under MCL 767.4 to a preliminary examination, but the circuit court denied his motion to remand his case to the district court for a preliminary examination. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether a defendant charged with a felony after a proceeding conducted pursuant to MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 is entitled to a preliminary examination.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
