NATHAN BANKS V LAB LANSING BODY ASSEMBLY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NATHAN BANKS,
FOR PUBLICATION
June 1, 2006
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 259934
WCAC
LC No. 03-000400
LAB LANSING BODY ASSEMBLY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Official Reported Version
Before: Murphy, P.J., and O'Connell and Murray, JJ.
MURRAY, J. (concurring).
I concur in the decision to reverse the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission
because, for the reasons stated by the majority opinion, under the transactional test adopted in
Michigan, plaintiff 's subsequent claim for benefits is not barred by res judicata. See Adair v
Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 124-125; 680 NW2d 386 (2004). There is no doubt that the two
unrelated injuries claimed by plaintiff would not create a convenient trial unit. Id. at 125.
However, it is important to point out what the limitations are, at least in my estimation, in
the decision issued today. From a review of the rather sparse case law on the issue of res
judicata in the workers' compensation field, it appears that the Supreme Court has concluded that
subsequent claims for benefits can be successfully brought if the second claim is based on new or
aggravated injuries that did not exist at the time the initial decision was made. See, e.g., Gose v
Monroe Auto Equip Co, 409 Mich 147, 162; 294 NW2d 165 (1980), and Hlady v Wolverine Bolt
Co, 393 Mich 368, 375-376; 224 NW2d 856 (1975). Thus, the Gose Court held that res judicata
did bar the plaintiff 's second claim for benefits because it was based on the same injury as that in
the first claim and was only premised on a different theory. Gose, supra at 163. And this is
perfectly consistent with a common understanding of res judicata, because the original injury is
not at issue in the second proceeding when it is a changed condition for which the plaintiff is
seeking to recover benefits. Since the condition changed after the decision on the first claim, it
could not have been presented in the first instance. Thompson v Ford Motor Co, 139 Mich App
177, 181-183; 362 NW2d 240 (1984); Wood v Fabricators, Inc, 189 Mich App 406, 417-418;
473 NW2d 735 (1991).
-1-
This case is somewhat different, in that plaintiff had suffered his second injury at least six
months before the hearing on his first claim for benefits. Hence, plaintiff literally "could have"
brought this injury before the magistrate at the time of the first hearing. Under the transactional
test, however, he ultimately is not required to do so because of the significant differences in the
time and origin of the two injuries, which are so diverse that it would not have allowed for a
convenient trial of the issues. Adair, supra at 125; see, also, Askew v Ann Arbor Pub Schools,
431 Mich 714, 732-733; 433 NW2d 800 (1988) (Boyle, J, concurring). In other words, it is the
unique facts of this case, rather than an all encompassing rule of law, that allows plaintiff to
continue with this second claim for benefits.
Therefore, in my view, nothing in the majority opinion detracts from the Gose Court's
admonition that workers' compensation proceedings "would scarcely be enhanced by a
construction [of res judicata] which would authorize piecemeal compensation for an injury."
Gose, supra at 162. It is wise counsel to pursue all claims in one proceeding unless, as in this
case, the two claims are so unrelated that they could not have properly been tried together.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.