ANTHONY HERNANDEZ V GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, Personal
Representative of the Estate of ANTHONY
HERNANDEZ, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
September 17, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
LEVINE, BENJAMIN,
JERRIS & STEIN, P.C.,
TUSHMAN,
BRATT,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237645
WCAC
LC No. 94-000821
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.1
ON REMAND
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This worker’s compensation appeal comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court.
This matter was previously before this Court as an application for leave, which we denied.2
However, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, our Supreme Court has remanded the matter to this
Court for consideration as on leave granted of Issue III raised in plaintiff’s brief. 465 Mich 899.
Thus, our review is limited to whether interest may be awarded on attorney fees. After
consideration of the issue, we reverse the judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate
Commission (WCAC), which had affirmed the magistrate’s award of $12,462.40 in interest.
1
Although defendant General Motors is listed as an appellee, it is not a party to this appeal in
that it has no direct interest in the issue presented and has not filed a brief.
2
Anthony Hernandez v General Motors Corporation, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals,
issued September 21, 2000 (Docket No. 225634).
-1-
Plaintiff argues that there is no authority for awarding interest on an attorney fee in a
worker’s compensation case. We agree. In fact, petitioner concedes that plaintiff is “technically
correct,” but argues that it is still entitled to attorney fees and costs on plaintiff’s accrued
worker’s compensation benefits. Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law that we
review de novo. Oakland Co Bd of Road Comm’rs v Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty
Ass’n, 456 Mich 590, 610; 575 NW2d 751 (1998). “The primary goal of judicial interpretation
of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Kokx v Bylenga, 241
Mich App 655, 661; 617 NW2d 368 (2000). “This Court will not read into a statute anything
that is not within the manifest intention of the Legislature as gathered from the act itself.” Id.
In workers’ compensation cases, attorney fees are authorized by MCL 418.858 and
administrative rule 14. However, neither the statute nor the rule provide for interest. The
WCAC relies on MCL 418.862 in support of its award of interest on attorney fees. Nevertheless,
nowhere in the language of § 862 is there a provision providing for the application of interest to
an award of attorney fees. The Workers’ Compensation Disability Act simply does not afford
petitioner a calculation of interest on its award of attorney fees, nor does petitioner cite any such
authority. Accordingly, we will not write such a provision into the Act where none exists in the
specific language of the statute itself. See id. Petitioner’s award of interest is vacated, while its
award of attorney fees and costs is undisturbed.
Reversed in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Harold Hood
/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.
