NORMA NACY V MERCURY PLASTICS CHRYSLER CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NORMA NACY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
MERCURY PLASTICS COMPANY/CHRYSLER
CORPORATION,
No. 192525
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 95-000690 CZ
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and MacKenzie and N.O. Holowka*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of
plaintiff and the resulting entry of a judgment on a worker’s compensation magistrate’s decision pursuant
to MCL 418.863; MSA 17.237(863). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court erroneously refused to entertain defendant’s due process challenge to the validity
of the magistrate’s decision and order. Although appeals through administrative channels are preferred
and encouraged, procedural due process defenses to a judgment, decision, order, or award of a
worker’s compensation magistrate not raised in an underlying worker’s compensation proceeding are
not waived if timely raised in the circuit court because a circuit court is vested with the power to
examine the validity of the decisions entered and empowered to determine whether the decisions are
void or voidable for lack of jurisdiction over the parties or of notice to the parties. Abbott v Howard,
182 Mich App 243, 247-249, 251; 451 NW2d 597 (1990); see also Guerrero v Brighton Athletic
Ass’n, 81 Mich App 58, 61-62 n 2; 264 NW2d 119 (1978). Accordingly, the circuit court is
empowered to vacate a judgment, decision, order, or award of an administrative agency that was
secured in violation of a party’s right to procedural due process. Abbott, supra at 248-249.
Nevertheless, the error was harmless, defendant having failed to demonstrate a colorable claim
of a due process violation. Defendant’s assertion to the contrary, oral notice to any representative of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
defendant, in this case defendant’s claims representative, constituted sufficient notice to survive a due
process challenge. See Norris v Chrysler Corp, 391 Mich 469; 216 NW2d 783 (1974).
Additionally, absent a sworn offer of proof supplied by the claims representative to whom notice, on this
record, was sent and received, defendant failed to call into question the accuracy of an inference
otherwise reasonably drawn from plaintiff’s documentation that defendant’s claims representative
received written notice, but never forwarded the notice to defendant’s legal department.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Nick O. Holowka
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
