Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 421 / Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34 (2026)

Appeal to Michigan compensation appellate commission from findings of fact and decision or from denial of motion for rehearing or reopening.

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

MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ACT


Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)


421.34 Appeal to Michigan compensation appellate commission from findings of fact and decision or from denial of motion for rehearing or reopening.

Sec. 34.

    (1) The Michigan compensation appellate commission created in Executive Reorganization Order No. 2011-6, MCL 445.2032, has full authority to handle, process, and decide appeals filed under section 33(2).

    (2) An appeal to the Michigan compensation appellate commission from the findings of fact and decision of the administrative law judge or from a denial by the administrative law judge of a motion for a rehearing or reopening shall be a matter of right by an interested party. The Michigan compensation appellate commission, on the basis of evidence previously submitted and additional evidence as it requires, shall affirm, modify, set aside, or reverse the findings of fact and decision of the administrative law judge or a denial by the administrative law judge of a motion for rehearing or reopening.

    (3) The agency is an interested party in a matter before an administrative law judge, the Michigan compensation appellate commission, or a court, but notice of hearing is not required to be provided to the agency for a hearing before an administrative law judge or the Michigan compensation appellate commission.

    (4) The Michigan compensation appellate commission shall conduct an oral hearing in a matter before it only after an application for the hearing is made by an interested party and the application is approved by 2 or more members of the Michigan compensation appellate commission assigned to review the appeal. If an application for an oral hearing is not approved, the Michigan compensation appellate commission may consider a written argument if an application for written argument is approved by 2 or more members of the Michigan compensation appellate commission assigned to review the appeal and all parties are represented or all parties agree that written argument should be considered. If neither an oral hearing is held nor written argument considered, the Michigan compensation appellate commission shall decide the case on the record before the administrative law judge.

    (5) The Michigan compensation appellate commission, in its discretion, may omit the basis for its decision in cases in which it affirms the decision of an administrative law judge without alteration or modification.

    (6) If the appellant fails to appear, the Michigan compensation appellate commission may dismiss the proceedings or take other action it considers advisable.

    (7) The Michigan compensation appellate commission may, either upon application by an interested party for rehearing or on its own motion, proceed to rehear, affirm, modify, set aside, or reverse a prior decision on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in that case, or on the basis of additional evidence if the application or motion is made within 30 days after the date of mailing of the prior decision. The Michigan compensation appellate commission may, for good cause, reopen and review a prior decision of the Michigan compensation appellate commission and issue a new decision after the 30-day appeal period has expired, but a review shall not be made unless the request is filed with the Michigan compensation appellate commission, or review is initiated by the Michigan compensation appellate commission with notice to the interested parties, within 1 year after the date of mailing of the prior decision. Unless an interested party, within 30 days after mailing of a copy of a decision of the Michigan compensation appellate commission or of a denial of a motion for a rehearing, files an appeal from the decision or denial, or seeks judicial review as provided in section 38, the decision shall be final.

    (8) The Michigan compensation appellate commission may on its own motion affirm, modify, set aside, or reverse a decision or order of an administrative law judge on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in the case; direct the taking of additional evidence; or permit a party to the decision or order to initiate further appeals before it. The Michigan compensation appellate commission shall permit a further appeal by a party interested in a decision or order of an administrative law judge or by the Michigan compensation appellate commission if its initial ruling has been overruled or modified. The Michigan compensation appellate commission may remove to itself or direct the Michigan administrative hearing system to transfer to another administrative law judge the proceedings on appeal, rehearing, or review pending before an administrative law judge. The Michigan compensation appellate commission shall promptly notify the interested parties of its findings and decisions.

    (9) A member of the Michigan compensation appellate commission may administer oaths and take depositions.

    (10) The testimony at a hearing before an administrative law judge or the Michigan compensation appellate commission shall be recorded, but need not be transcribed unless requested by the majority of the panel of the Michigan compensation appellate commission assigned to hear the claim. If an interested party wants a copy of a transcript of a hearing held before an administrative law judge or the Michigan compensation appellate commission, an interested party may request and shall be provided a transcript. An interested party who requests a transcript is responsible for the cost of the transcript.

    (11) The manner in which an appeal to an administrative law judge and the Michigan compensation appellate commission shall be presented, the appeal reports required from an interested party, and the procedure governing the appeal shall be in accordance with rules promulgated by the Michigan administrative hearing system.

History: 1936, Ex. Sess., Act 1, Imd. Eff. Dec. 24, 1936 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 324, Imd. Eff. June 22, 1939 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 364, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1941 ;-- CL 1948, 421.34 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 251, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1951 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 281, Eff. Sept. 5, 1965 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 110, Eff. June 8, 1975 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 52, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1977 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 164, Eff. Oct. 1, 1983 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 2011

Compiler's Notes:

    For the abolishment of the Michigan compensation appellate commission and establishment of the new unemployment insurance appeals commission and the transfer of certain powers and duties of the Michigan compensation appellate commission to the unemployment insurance appeals commission, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc. v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n (In Re Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc.), 158 B.R. 650 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc. v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n (In Re Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc.), 158 B.R. 650 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “See MESC’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit L; Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 421,38(2). On December 5, 1990, the Board affirmed the referee’s decision.”
Hodge v. US Sec. Assocs., Inc, 859 N.W.2d 683 (Mich. 2015). “Specifically, MCL 421.34 addresses an appeal from an ALJ to the MCAC.”
Ackerberg v. Grant Cmty. Hosp., 360 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “The decision of the referee was affirmed by the Employment Security Board of Review on appeal by the employer pursuant to MCL 421.34; MSA 17.536. The decision of the board of review was affirmed in turn by the circuit court on review pursuant to MCL 421.”
Miller v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 102 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. 1960). · cites it 3× “First: To me the presently proffered opinion is an unabashed motion to depart from established rules which, so far, have restricted the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions; to circumvent the administrative duty-provisions of section 34 of the employment security…”
King v. Calumet & Hecla Corp., 204 N.W.2d 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “This decision of affirmance is without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right under MCLA 421.34; MSA 17.536 to petition the appeal board upon good cause shown to reopen, review its decision, and grant plaintiff relief if justice so requires.”
Blom v. Thermotron Corp., 360 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “The referee found that claimant voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer and declared claimant ineligible for benefits.”
Radke v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 194 N.W.2d 395 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “MCLA 421.34; MSA 17.536 provides regarding appeals to the MESC Appeal Board: “If the appellant fails to appear or prosecute the appeal, the appeal board may dismiss the proceedings or take such other action as it may deem advisable.”
20250213_C368792_51_368792.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 9× “[MCL 421.34.] Based upon the plain language of MCL 421.”
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Michigan’s Constitution, “All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct…”
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Michigan’s Constitution, “All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct…”
Suzanne Lawrence v. Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Notably, under MCL 421.34, the section of the MESA governing appeals to the MCAC, review of an ALJ’s decision is expressly limited to “the case on the record before the [ALJ].”
Weiler v. New Century Bank, 423 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 421.34; MSA 17.536. The parties had a full opportunity to litigate the above issues before the mesc, *361 including a full evidentiary hearing before a referee, a review by the board and an appeal as of right to the circuit court.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34(1) — 4 cases
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to Michigan’s Constitution, “All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct…”
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to Michigan’s Constitution, “All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct…”
Grant Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
James T Atchley v. Checker Motors Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34(11) — 2 cases
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to Michigan’s Constitution, “All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct…”
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to Michigan’s Constitution, “All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34(2) — 6 cases
Dep't of Labor & Econ. Opportunity v. Linda Cunningham (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Sylvia Brubaker v. Sodexo Mgmt. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sylvia Brubaker v. Sodexo Mgmt. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Dock Farish v. Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Kreps v. Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency (E.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34(3) — 2 cases
James T Atchley v. Checker Motors Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
20250213_C368792_51_368792.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “[MCL 421.34.] Based upon the plain language of MCL 421.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34(4) — 1 case
Suzanne Lawrence v. Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Notably, under MCL 421.34, the section of the MESA governing appeals to the MCAC, review of an ALJ’s decision is expressly limited to “the case on the record before the [ALJ].”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.34(7) — 1 case
20250213_C368792_51_368792.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “[MCL 421.34.] Based upon the plain language of MCL 421.”
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.