ERNEST F FRIEDMAN V GARY BAILEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ERNEST F. FRIEDMAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
GARY BAILEY, LAW OFFICE OF ALLABEN,
VANDERWEYDEN, TIMMER & BANDEEN,
P.C., and WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY,
No. 211930
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-811401-CK
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order dismissing this case. We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff, an attorney, represented defendant Bailey in a worker’s compensation case.
Defendant terminated plaintiff’s representation, and retained defendant Law Office of Allaben,
Vanderweyden, Timmer & Bandeen, P.C., to represent him. The firm informed plaintiff that the matter
had been redeemed, and requested that he state the amount that he was claiming on his attorney fee lien.
Plaintiff filed a motion in the Worker’s Compensation Bureau to enforce his lien; however, after he failed
to appear at a hearing, the magistrate dismissed the motion.
Rather than appeal the dismissal to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission
(WCAC), plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court alleging breach of contract and violation of attorney
lien. He moved for and was granted a temporary restraining order to prevent distribution of the
settlement. At a subsequent hearing, the circuit court dismissed the case on the ground that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a worker’s compensation fee matter, and assessed costs in the
amount of $1000.
Following the dismissal of his circuit court case, plaintiff filed a claim of appeal in the WCAC,
challenging the dismissal of his motion to set attorney fee lien. The WCAC treated the claim as a motion
for reinstatement, and denied same. A second petition for attorney fees was dismissed when plaintiff
-1
failed to appear at a hearing. Plaintiff then filed a third petition for attorney fees, which was pending at
the time briefs were filed in this matter.
The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. W A Foote
Memorial Hosp v Dep’t of Public Health, 210 Mich App 516, 522; 534 NW2d 206 (1995).
The Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq.; MSA
17.237(101) et seq., provides that any dispute regarding compensation or other benefits must be
submitted to the Bureau. MCL 418.841(1); MSA 17.237(841)(1). The WDCA also provides that
payment of attorney fees is subject to approval by a magistrate. MCL 418.858(1); MSA
17.237(858)(1). In the event of a dispute regarding fees, an interested party may seek a hearing before
the Bureau. Id. Review of the magistrate’s order may be had by the Director. Id. In turn, review of
the Director’s order may be had by the WCAC. Id.
Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We disagree and affirm. MCL 418.858(1); MSA 17.237(858)(1) specifically requires
Bureau approval of payment of attorney fees. The Bureau and, if need be, the WCAC on appeal from
the Bureau, is the appropriate forum in which to resolve an attorney fee dispute. In re Attorney Fees
of Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson, 406 Mich 497, 504-506; 280 NW2d 457
(1979); Nelson v Jensen, 26 Mich App 62, 68; 182 NW2d 72 (1970). The circuit court correctly
concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the fee dispute, and properly dismissed
the case, notwithstanding the fact that defendants had not filed a formal motion for dismissal. If a court
recognizes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case, dismissal on a sua sponte basis is
appropriate. Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 242-243; 134
NW2d 146 (1965).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.