Section 34, 38
APPEALS, Appeal to court from Board remand order, Adequate remedy, Appeal on the merits, Circuit court review, Final order, Interlocutory appeal, Superintending control
CITE AS: Baldwin v Hubbard Apiaries, Inc, No. 79-11-708, Lenawee Circuit Court (February 1, 1980).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Lu Ann Baldwin
Employer: Hubbard Apiaries, Inc.
Docket No: B76 19013 RO 58074
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A remand order of the Board is not appealable to circuit court. The order is not final, and a party " ... has an adequate remedy by appeal if an adverse decision on the merits makes it necessary."
FACTS: A Referee denied the claimant's request for reopening. "The Board of Review 'set aside' the 'denial of reopening and Referee decision and remanded for a hearing on the merits of the redetermination of October 8, 1976.'" The employer sought circuit court review of the remand order.
DECISION: The appeal to circuit court is dismissed.
RATIONALE: The Court based its decision on the holding in Ashford v UCC, 328 Mich 428 (1950). The Court distinguished the present case from the facts in Radke v ESC, 37 Mich App 104 (Reh den 1972).
"Nothing in the instant case indicates the attempted use by the employee of anything amounting to the 'subtly coercive effects of economic pressure.' Furthermore, at the time of the Radke decision GCR 1963, 711.2 prohibited the use of superintending control, 'if another plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available to the party seeking the orders.' Radke p110. This now has been amended and superintending control may not be used 'if another adequate remedy is available to the party seeking the order.' GCR 1963 711.2. The employer has an adequate remedy by appeal if an adverse decision on the merits makes it necessary."