Slais v. State of Michigan, Department of State Police, 2009 ACO # 10
The Plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment as a State Police Trooper. Medical and wage loss benefits were paid on a voluntary basis, and the Defendant wished to began vocational rehabilitation efforts under MCL 418.319. The Defendant wanted the Plaintiff to return to work consistent with his existing qualifications and training, however, Plaintiff wished to attend law school and have the Defendant pay.

An initial dispute regarding vocational rehabilitation under § 319 was heard by a vocational rehabilitation consultant for the State of Michigan. He found Plaintiff’s vocational retraining plan appropriate, and entered an Order for same. The Defendant challenged the Order, and requested a hearing before a magistrate, who affirmed the Vocational Order.

The Defendant appealed to the Appellate Commission, arguing denial of due process of the law because neither of the previous proceedings, before the vocational rehabilitation consultant or the magistrate, was recorded. Furthermore, the Defendant was not permitted to introduce evidence before the Magistrate.

The WCAC agreed with the Defendant. The proceeding at the level of the vocational rehabilitation consultant resulting from the initial vocational rehabilitation dispute does not require a full, formal, evidentiary hearing complete with an official “record”. This initial hearing is more akin to a mediation hearing.

However, if either of the parties is dissatisfied with the outcome at that initial level, then that party is entitled to an official hearing before a magistrate. The hearing before the magistrate is not an “appeal” of the prior decision/order of the state vocational rehabilitation consultant, but instead, a de novo hearing in which the Magistrate is to essentially “start over” with the evidence, allowing the parties to introduce evidence, including exhibits and/or testimony. Section 858(1) of the Act requires the making of an official record via stenographic notes, etc. at the Magistrate level in order to comply with due process.