 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kroon-Harris v. State7/14/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Meter and Owens, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the Court of Claims granting summary disposition to defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). The court concluded that plaintiff should have filed her lawsuit in the circuit court as opposed to the Court of Claims. We disagree and therefore reverse.
On June 10, 2004, plaintiff, a former state employee, filed a complaint alleging that she was enrolled in the long-term disability (LTD) and income protection plan for State of Michigan employees. Plaintiff claimed that she became disabled and that defendant paid her LTD benefits from 2001 until approximately May 12, 2003. She claimed that defendant, by way of a decision by the Office of the State Employer (OSE), erroneously stopped paying her the benefits in May 2003 and that she was entitled to "disability benefits from and after May 12, 2003, unless and until laintiff's eligibility otherwise ceases or expires."
On July 22, 2004, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, mainly reiterating the information and claims in her original complaint but adding that (1) defendant's decision to deny LTD benefits to plaintiff was not subject to review by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission or any other state agency, (2) " efendant's decision to deny disability benefits to laintiff was made without an evidentiary hearing" and no such hearing was in fact required by law, and (3) defendant broke a contract in denying plaintiff LTD benefits.
On January 26, 2005, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4). Defendant argued that, under Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Dep't of Environmental Quality, 471 Mich 508, 519; 684 NW2d 842 (2004), judicial review of an administrative decision is available by way of (1) the process set forth in the statute applicable to the agency in question; (2) an appeal under various Michigan court rules and under MCL 600.631, a provision of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.101 et seq.; or (3) the review process provided in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq.
Defendant claimed that the first option from Dunes was unavailable because there is no statutory review process applicable to the OSE. Defendant also claimed that the third option was unavailable because the OSE is not actually considered an "agency" under the APA and because no "contested case" had been in existence. Defendant claimed that only the second option was available and that, in accordance with MCL 600.631, plaintiff should have filed her lawsuit in the circuit court in her county of residence or in the Ingham County Circuit Court. Defendant argued that the applicable standard of review was set forth in Const 1963, art 6, ยง 28, and that the reviewing court was therefore limited to determining whether the OSE's decision was "authorized by law."
Defendant additionally moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Defendant argued that plaintiff was a "classified" employee and that classified employees have no express or implied employment contracts. Defendant stated that "no classified employee can reasonably expect that she would be entitled to LTD benefits if she is no longer totally disabled" (emphasis supplied by defendant).
Plaintiff filed a responsive brief on February 11, 2005. She argued that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over her lawsuit because, under MCL 600.6419(1)(a), the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to hear all contractual claims against the state. She further argued that defendant's reliance on MCL 600.631 was misplaced because that statute applies only to a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|