Board of Health & Safety’s decision; Findings of fact & conclusions of law; Statutory authority; Distinguishing Loper Bright Enters v Raimondo; Lanzo Constr Co, Inc v Michigan Dep't of Labor; Public policy; Administrative law judge (ALJ)

Concluding that the circuit court properly held that the Board’s decision was authorized by law, the court affirmed. Defendant issued a citation to plaintiff, which plaintiff untimely appealed. An ALJ “found that plaintiff had good cause for its late appeal; however, the” Board overturned this decision. “The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision.” Plaintiff indisputably received a copy of the citation on 11/8/21, but did not challenge it until 12/21/21, “thereby missing the 15-working-day window that ended on” 12/1/21. Accordingly, the Board was “authorized by law to deny plaintiff’s appeal.” The court held that this “was not an arbitrary or capricious decision when the Board properly considered the relevant facts and applicable law.” Plaintiff argued, “however, that the Board failed to provide its findings of fact and conclusions of law.” The court noted that in “its order, the Board properly explained the history of the case, noted each parties’ arguments, and referred to the Lanzo decision and ‘good cause’ standard when determining that plaintiff had not established that it was prevented from timely appealing the citation. The Board’s findings were sufficient to permit the circuit court’s review.” Plaintiff also pointed to Loper Bright, “a federal case dealing with federal law” that had “no particular relevance to this state-law dispute.” In any event, the court noted that “MCL 408.1041 is not ambiguous in requiring an employer to appeal a citation within 15 working days to prevent it from becoming the final order of the Board. The circuit court’s review ensured that defendant acted within its authority.” Finally, plaintiff argued “that the Board’s decision violated public policy because it would erode trust between agencies and regulated parties if an agency could not be held to its ‘promises.’” Plaintiff had not “identified any ‘definite indications in the law,’ to support a finding that it violated public policy for the circuit court to affirm the Board’s decision in this case.”