Bezeau v. Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc

I dissent from the decision by the majority of justices to “overrule the retroactive effect of Karaczewski.”1 Having failed to identify any flaw in the analysis of Karaczewski, overruling the application of the case is simply a means of substan*479tively overruling Karaczewski without explicitly saying so. Karaczewski properly interpreted the plain language of MCL 418.845, and it was appropriately applied to the case at bar by the lower courts. Because the majority justices essentially render Karaczewski an advisory opinion, I dissent.

At the time of plaintiffs injury, MCL 418.845 provided:

The…