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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a (2026)

Hearing and decision; findings of fact; definitions; transcript and brief; copies; reply brief; cross appeal and brief; specifications; review and decision; adoption of order and opinion; scope of review; remand; analyses of evidence; findings of fact conclusive; review of questions of law; modification or correction of errors in decision.

✓ 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


418.861a Hearing and decision; findings of fact; definitions; transcript and brief; copies; reply brief; cross appeal and brief; specifications; review and decision; adoption of order and opinion; scope of review; remand; analyses of evidence; findings of fact conclusive; review of questions of law; modification or correction of errors in decision.

Sec. 861a.

    (1) Any matter for which a claim for review under section 859a has been filed shall be heard and decided by the appellate commission.

    (2) Until October 1, 1986 findings of fact made by a worker's compensation magistrate shall be considered conclusive by the commission if supported by competent, material, and a preponderance of the evidence on the whole record.

    (3) Beginning October 1, 1986 findings of fact made by a worker's compensation magistrate shall be considered conclusive by the commission if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. As used in this subsection, "substantial evidence" means such evidence, considering the whole record, as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to justify the conclusion.

    (4) As used in subsections (2) and (3), "whole record" means the entire record of the hearing including all of the evidence in favor and all the evidence against a certain determination.

    (5) A party filing a claim for review under section 859a shall file a copy of the transcript of the hearing within 60 days of filing the claim for review and shall file its brief with the commission and provide any opposing party with a copy of the transcript and its brief not more than 30 days after filing the transcript. For sufficient cause shown, the commission may grant further time in which to file a transcript.

    (6) Not more than 30 days after receiving a copy of the transcript and brief of the appealing party, an opposing party shall file its reply brief with the commission and provide a copy of the brief to the appealing party. In addition to filing its reply brief within the 30 days, the opposing party may file a cross appeal and brief in support thereof specifying the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record that support the position of the party.

    (7) A party responding to a cross appeal shall have 30 days after receiving a copy of the brief in support of the cross appeal to file its reply brief with the commission. The reply brief shall specify the findings of facts and conclusions of law in the record that support that party's position.

    (8) A party filing a claim for review under section 859a shall specify to the commission those portions of the record that support that party's claim and any party opposing such claim shall specify those portions of the record that support that party's position.

    (9) Not more than 15 days after all briefs have been filed with the commission, the matter shall be referred for review and decision to either a panel of the commission or the entire commission as provided for under section 274.

    (10) The commission or a panel of the commission, may adopt, in whole or in part, the order and opinion of the worker's compensation magistrate as the order and opinion of the commission.

    (11) The commission or a panel of the commission shall review only those specific findings of fact or conclusions of law that the parties have requested be reviewed.

    (12) The commission or a panel of the commission may remand a matter to a worker's compensation magistrate for purposes of supplying a complete record if it is determined that the record is insufficient for purposes of review.

    (13) A review of the evidence pursuant to this section shall include both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of that evidence in order to ensure a full, thorough, and fair review.

    (14) The findings of fact made by the commission acting within its powers, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive. The court of appeals and the supreme court shall have the power to review questions of law involved with any final order of the commission, if application is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after the order by any method permissible under the Michigan court rules.

    (15) If the parties stipulate within 30 days after the decision is rendered to modify or correct errors in the decision, the commission shall modify or correct errors in the decision in accordance with the stipulations. Stipulations shall otherwise comply with the provisions of this act.

History: Add. 1985, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 30, 1985 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 97, Imd. Eff. Apr. 13, 1994

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 137 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 65× “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 38× “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 14× “APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW The first issue before this Court is whether the WCAC applied the correct standard of appellate review when it used the "substantial evidence" test as set forth in MCL 418.861a; MSA 17.237(861a). The Legislature added § 861a to the WDCA…”
Layman v. Newkirk Elec. Assocs. Inc., 581 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 20× “I agree with the majority that the magistrate-failed to specifically find that plaintiff's arthritis was a condition of the aging process. I write separately, however, because I disagree with its conclusion that the magistrate is the only proper person to make additional fact…”
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 6× “" MCL 418.861a(1) provides that any *18 claim for review filed pursuant to § 859a "shall be heard and decided by the appellate commission [WCAC].”
Illes v. Jones Transfer Co., 539 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “Plaintiff now argues, and we agree, that the WCAC erred in reversing the magistrate's findings of work-relatedness.”
Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgmt., Inc, 592 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 6× “" MCL 418.861a(3); MSA 17.237(861a)(3). In the instant case, the magistrate made specific findings of fact and correctly applied general principles of contract law.”
Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Dep't of Labor, 384 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 10× “[25] MCL 418.861a; MSA 17.237(861a). [26] MCL 418.”
Boardman v. Dep't of State Police, 622 N.W.2d 97 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “Review of worker’s compensation cases is governed by two distinct statutory standards. While the “substantial evidence” standard governs the wcac’s review of a magistrate’s factual findings, MCL 418.”
Rakestraw v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc, 666 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.”
Camburn v. Nw. Sch. Dist., 592 N.W.2d 46 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 5× “I Whether plaintiff was on a "special mission" for her employer while driving to a work-related seminar is a question of law that this Court may resolve without infringing on the fact-finding jurisdiction of the magistrate.”
Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc, 753 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “We scheduled the case for oral argument on the application, directing the parties to address "whether plaintiff's injury resulted from her willful misconduct.”
Show all 137 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(1) — 2 cases
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). “APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW The first issue before this Court is whether the WCAC applied the correct standard of appellate review when it used the "substantial evidence" test as set forth in MCL 418.861a; MSA 17.237(861a). The Legislature added § 861a to the WDCA…”
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). “" MCL 418.861a(1) provides that any *18 claim for review filed pursuant to § 859a "shall be heard and decided by the appellate commission [WCAC].”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(10) — 5 cases
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). “APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW The first issue before this Court is whether the WCAC applied the correct standard of appellate review when it used the "substantial evidence" test as set forth in MCL 418.861a; MSA 17.237(861a). The Legislature added § 861a to the WDCA…”
Layman v. Newkirk Elec. Assocs. Inc., 581 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1998). “I agree with the majority that the magistrate-failed to specifically find that plaintiff's arthritis was a condition of the aging process. I write separately, however, because I disagree with its conclusion that the magistrate is the only proper person to make additional fact…”
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
Omian v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 869 N.W.2d 625 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Abbey v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry, 486 N.W.2d 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(10)(14) — 1 case
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(11) — 7 cases
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Matney v. Southfield Bowl, 554 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
Spencer James Smith v. Mm1 Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Matthew D Warren v. Ad Transp. Express Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Helen Jordan v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(12) — 15 cases
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). “" MCL 418.861a(1) provides that any *18 claim for review filed pursuant to § 859a "shall be heard and decided by the appellate commission [WCAC].”
Askew v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 433 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. 1988).
Layman v. Newkirk Elec. Assocs. Inc., 581 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1998). “I agree with the majority that the magistrate-failed to specifically find that plaintiff's arthritis was a condition of the aging process. I write separately, however, because I disagree with its conclusion that the magistrate is the only proper person to make additional fact…”
Haske v. Transp. Leasing, Inc., Indiana, 566 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. 1997).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(13) — 15 cases
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Illes v. Jones Transfer Co., 539 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “Plaintiff now argues, and we agree, that the WCAC erred in reversing the magistrate's findings of work-relatedness.”
Abbey v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry, 486 N.W.2d 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
Daniel v. Dep't of Corr., 638 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(14) — 81 cases
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
Layman v. Newkirk Elec. Assocs. Inc., 581 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1998). “I agree with the majority that the magistrate-failed to specifically find that plaintiff's arthritis was a condition of the aging process. I write separately, however, because I disagree with its conclusion that the magistrate is the only proper person to make additional fact…”
Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc, 753 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. 2008). “We scheduled the case for oral argument on the application, directing the parties to address "whether plaintiff's injury resulted from her willful misconduct.”
Bennett v. Mackinac Bridge Auth., 808 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(2) — 2 cases
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
Reynolds v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 672 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. 2003).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(3) — 63 cases
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). “APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW The first issue before this Court is whether the WCAC applied the correct standard of appellate review when it used the "substantial evidence" test as set forth in MCL 418.861a; MSA 17.237(861a). The Legislature added § 861a to the WDCA…”
Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgmt., Inc, 592 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1999). “" MCL 418.861a(3); MSA 17.237(861a)(3). In the instant case, the magistrate made specific findings of fact and correctly applied general principles of contract law.”
Illes v. Jones Transfer Co., 539 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “Plaintiff now argues, and we agree, that the WCAC erred in reversing the magistrate's findings of work-relatedness.”
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(4) — 7 cases
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 418.861a et seq. ; M.S.A. § 17.237(861a) et seq.”
Romero v. Burt Moeke Hardwoods, Inc, 760 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
McIntosh v. Chrysler Corp., 538 N.W.2d 428 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
Matthew D Warren v. Ad Transp. Express Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(5) — 8 cases
Marshall v. D J Jacobetti Vets. Facility, 526 N.W.2d 585 (Mich. 1994).
Laudenslager v. Pendell Printing, Inc, 544 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
Rodney Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Rodney Collins v. Detroit Radiator Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Brooks v. Engine Power Components, Inc, 613 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(6) — 2 cases
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 505 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
Schambers v. Nat'l Redi Mix, Inc, 624 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(l) — 3 cases
Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 501 N.W.2d 76 (Mich. 1993). “APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW The first issue before this Court is whether the WCAC applied the correct standard of appellate review when it used the "substantial evidence" test as set forth in MCL 418.861a; MSA 17.237(861a). The Legislature added § 861a to the WDCA…”
Reed v. Yackell, 703 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). “" MCL 418.861a(1) provides that any *18 claim for review filed pursuant to § 859a "shall be heard and decided by the appellate commission [WCAC].”
Marshall v. D.J. Jacobetti Vets. Facility, 517 N.W.2d 855 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.861a(ll) — 6 cases
Boardman v. Dep't of State Police, 622 N.W.2d 97 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Review of worker’s compensation cases is governed by two distinct statutory standards. While the “substantial evidence” standard governs the wcac’s review of a magistrate’s factual findings, MCL 418.”
Mudel v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 2000). “Further, in Connaway v Welded Construction Co, we find that the successive injury rule requires the plaintiff to pursue worker’s compensation benefits in the state of New York, where her disability arose, rather than in Michigan.”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 658 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. 2003).
Weems v. Chrysler Corp., 505 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
Brooks v. Engine Power Components, Inc, 613 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
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.