Application for disability retirement benefits; Due process; Whether plaintiff had a legitimate property interest in obtaining benefits; Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp; MCL 38.67a(5); Jurisdiction over the claim of appeal; MCR 7.203(A)(1)(a); Natural Res Def Council v Department of Envtl Quality; Effect of the lack of subpoena power; Treating a claim of appeal as an application for leave to appeal; Independent medical advisor (IMA)

The court held that the “lack of subpoena power did not divest the administrative proceedings” as to appellant’s application for disability retirement benefits from appellee “of having the character of quasi-judicial proceedings.” But while the court did not have jurisdiction over his claim of appeal, it granted leave to appeal. As to the merits, it held that he did “not have a legitimate property interest in obtaining disability retirement benefits,” and affirmed appellee’s decision denying his benefit application. The court concluded that while “the ability to subpoena witnesses to testify or produce documents is a characteristic common to court actions, indeed a vital one, we are unaware of any case where the lack of one such characteristic, while all others are present, renders the proceedings as nonjudicial.” The court noted that appellant had and used “the opportunity to call witnesses and introduce documentary evidence, and there is no suggestion that [he] attempted to—but could not—call certain witnesses because he lacked subpoena power.” Turning to the merits, he argued that “his right to due process was violated because under MCL 38.67a(5), an applicant for disability retirement benefits must obtain certification from an IMA that the applicant is permanently disabled.” However, the court found it did not need to address his constitutional claim because he “had no reasonable expectation of receiving disability retirement benefits absent the relevant statute.” To have such a reasonable expectation, he had to first show he satisfied all three of MCL 38.67a(5)’s requirements. There was no dispute he applied “for benefits with the retirement board and that [he] was a state employee for at least 10 years.” Although there was also no dispute he did not “obtain certification that he was permanently incapacitated, appellant claims that the process by which one obtains such certification is fundamentally unfair because the medical advisor is not an impartial decisionmaker. But this puts the cart before the horse because before the Court can examine whether procedural safeguards—such as an impartial decisionmaker—have been met, appellant must show he has a reasonable expectation to receive disability retirement benefits. Because [he] cannot show more than a unilateral expectation to obtain” the benefits, he could not show he had a protected property interest in them.