Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of §385 of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act. MCL 418.385; MSA 17.237(385).

I reject the majority’s conclusion that its interpretation of the statute is compelled by the rules of construction "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another” and "no word should be treated as surplusage . . . .” Ante, pp 362, 364. To interpret § 385 as expressing a legislative intent to assure the right to at least a physician’s presence violates neither of these maxims. The absence of any reference to the presence of nonphysicians at the…