Listen to this article
Where (1) plaintiff employees sought workers’ compensation benefits, (2) the defendant employers issued subpoenas (for records) to the Unemployment Insurance Agency, a subdivision of the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, and (3) the denial of UIA’s motions to quash those subpoenas was affirmed by the Workers’ Disability Compensation Appeals Commission, that decision should be upheld despite UIA’s argues that the WDCAC erred by holding that defendants, as employers, were “interested parties” under the Michigan Employment Security Act (MESA) and that the exception to the MESA’s general rule of confidentiality applied to their subpoenas.
“In the actions underlying these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff employees sought workers’ compensation benefits and the defendant employers issued subpoenas (for records) to the Unemployment Insurance Agency, a subdivision of the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (hereinafter appellant or UIA). The magistrates denied appellant’s motions to quash those subpoenas, and the Workers’ Disability Compensation Appeals Commission (WDCAC) affirmed. Appellant now appeals by leave granted. We affirm. …
“Appellant argues that the WDCAC erred by holding that defendants, as employers, were ‘interested parties’ under the MESA and that the exception to the MESA’s general rule of confidentiality applied to their subpoenas. We disagree. …
“The issue in this case, in some respects, is a simple one: when an employee seeks worker’s compensation benefits, is the defendant employer entitled to information about the employee’s unemployment benefits held by appellant? …
“For these reasons, the WDCAC correctly concluded that, under the MESA, an employer against whom a worker’s compensation claim has been made is an ‘interested party’ entitled to confidential unemployment records concerning the claimant. Accordingly, it did not err by affirming the magistrates’ denials of appellant’s motions to quash the subpoenas in these three appeals. …
“Appellant also argues in the alternative that the WDCAC erred by failing to narrow the scope of the documents requested in the subpoenas, and by failing to order the employers to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to pay the costs of production. We disagree. …
“In this case, the record shows that appellant did not avail itself of any of the available procedures under the court rules or pursue the issue of costs before the magistrates. Nor does appellant provide any authority for the proposition that an order affirming the denial of a motion to quash must require the requesting party to pay the costs of production. Because appellant has presented no authority supporting the contention that the WDCAC was required to include explicit statements about confidentiality and a payment requirement in its orders, it was not an abuse of discretion for the WDCAC to refrain from doing so. …
“Affirmed.”
