Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 418 / Act 317 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.859a (2026)

Filing claim for review; time; copy of testimony, depositions, and other documents.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969


Act 317 of 1969


418.859a Filing claim for review; time; copy of testimony, depositions, and other documents.

Sec. 859a.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided for in this act, a claim for review of a case for which an application under section 847 is filed after March 31, 1986 shall be filed with the appellate commission. A claim for review shall be filed with the commission not more than 30 days after the date the order of the worker's compensation magistrate or director is sent to the parties. For sufficient cause shown, the commission may grant further time in which to claim a review.

    (2) If the employer or carrier files a claim for review to the appellate commission, or appeals to the court of appeals, or the supreme court, a copy of the testimony, depositions, and other documents necessary for the appeal shall be furnished by the employer or carrier to the employee or the employee's attorney.

History: Add. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985

Compiler's Notes:

    For legislative intent as to severability, see Compiler's note to MCL 418.213.

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “237(862)(2) (where an initial application for workers' compensation is filed after March 31, 1986 filing for a claim of review does not stay medical payments); MCL 418.”
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 4× “" MCL 418.859a and 418.861a establish the procedures a party must follow in order to appeal a magistrate's decision within the WCB.”
Brown v. Beckwith Evans Co., 480 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “5 We note that our resolution of this issue will affect a limited class of litigants in light of the fact that cases in which applications for hearing are filed after March 31, 1986, must be reviewed by the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission, MCL 418.859a; MSA…”
Barham v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 457 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “237(859), MCL 418.859a; MSA 17.237(859a), MCL 418.861; MSA 17.”
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc, 472 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “See MCL 418.859a(l); MSA 17.237(859a)(l). Subsections 861a(2) and (3) both govern the standard by which the wcac is to review a magistrate’s decision; they do not govern the standard relating to a claimant’s burden of proof before the magistrate.”
Pankey v. bigard/drillers, Inc, 564 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Pursuant to MCL 418.859a(1); MSA 17.237(859a)(1), plaintiff had thirty days from the date of the mailing of the magistrate’s order in which to file a claim for review with the WCAC.”
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 505 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “Plaintiff did not file a claim for review, MCL 418.859a(l); MSA 17.237(859a)(l), or a cross appeal, MCL 418.”
Joseph M Walker v. Workers Comp. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiff would have a right to appeal the decision of the worker’s compensation magistrate to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, if he were dissatisfied with the magistrate’s ruling.”
Joseph M Walker v. Workers Comp. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiff would have a right to appeal the decision of the worker’s compensation magistrate to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, if he were dissatisfied with the magistrate’s ruling.”
Rodney Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Under MCL 418.859a, a decision of a magistrate may be challenged by filing a claim for review in the MCAC.”
Rodney Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Under MCL 418.859a, a decision of a magistrate may be challenged by filing a claim for review in the MCAC.”
Helen Jordan v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. 2022). “After reviewing the evidence, the magistrate concluded that “plaintiff’s loss of wage earning capacity is not related to her 1995 work injury but to her opioid dependency.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.859a(1) — 7 cases
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). “237(862)(2) (where an initial application for workers' compensation is filed after March 31, 1986 filing for a claim of review does not stay medical payments); MCL 418.”
Pankey v. bigard/drillers, Inc, 564 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Pursuant to MCL 418.859a(1); MSA 17.237(859a)(1), plaintiff had thirty days from the date of the mailing of the magistrate’s order in which to file a claim for review with the WCAC.”
Joseph M Walker v. Workers Comp. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiff would have a right to appeal the decision of the worker’s compensation magistrate to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, if he were dissatisfied with the magistrate’s ruling.”
Joseph M Walker v. Workers Comp. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Plaintiff would have a right to appeal the decision of the worker’s compensation magistrate to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, if he were dissatisfied with the magistrate’s ruling.”
Helen Jordan v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. 2022). “After reviewing the evidence, the magistrate concluded that “plaintiff’s loss of wage earning capacity is not related to her 1995 work injury but to her opioid dependency.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.859a(l) — 3 cases
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). “237(862)(2) (where an initial application for workers' compensation is filed after March 31, 1986 filing for a claim of review does not stay medical payments); MCL 418.”
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc, 472 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “See MCL 418.859a(l); MSA 17.237(859a)(l). Subsections 861a(2) and (3) both govern the standard by which the wcac is to review a magistrate’s decision; they do not govern the standard relating to a claimant’s burden of proof before the magistrate.”
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 505 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “Plaintiff did not file a claim for review, MCL 418.859a(l); MSA 17.237(859a)(l), or a cross appeal, MCL 418.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.