Background
Brandon Bunkelman had spent a long career in Michigan’s elevator industry but applied for an elevator journeyman’s license under the Elevator Licensing Act (ELA), MCL 338.2151 et seq. LARA (the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs) denied the application, concluding that his experience—while extensive—lacked the type of supervisory experience required for the license he sought. The ELA authorizes LARA to issue different license types and, under MCL 338.2156(4), to restrict licenses to specific types of elevator work. LARA’s administrative rules, Mich Admin Code, R 408.7018, classify elevator journeyman licenses into types (including Type A and Type B), with Type A covering installation, construction, and alteration work requiring supervisory experience the applicant must affirmatively prove.
After LARA denied Bunkelman’s application, the case went to circuit court. One judge (Judge Hatty) ordered LARA to issue Bunkelman a restricted license. On LARA’s motion for reconsideration, a different judge (Judge McGivney) vacated Judge Hatty’s order and reinstated LARA’s original denial. Bunkelman appealed, arguing primarily on statutory interpretation grounds that LARA lacked authority to impose the supervisory-experience requirement and that the reconsideration order itself was improper.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court first interpreted the interaction between the ELA and the elevator safety board act, MCL 408.801 et seq., which the ELA incorporates by reference. These two statutes together govern separate aspects of elevator work: the ELA licenses individual journeymen while the elevator safety board act licenses elevator contractors. Both statutes recognize that “elevator work” encompasses distinct categories—installation, alteration, maintenance, repair, servicing, inspecting, adjusting, and testing—and MCL 338.2156(4) expressly authorizes LARA to restrict licenses to “specific types of work.”
The court held that LARA acted within its statutory authority in requiring applicants for Type A journeyman licenses to demonstrate supervisory experience performing or overseeing installation, construction, and alteration work—not merely maintenance and repair work. Bunkelman’s extensive experience was in maintenance and repair (Type B work), not installation or construction (Type A work). The panel also held that Judge McGivney correctly granted reconsideration: because LARA’s denial was authorized by law, Judge Hatty had no basis to order the license issued, meaning reconsideration was proper even if some of Judge McGivney’s reasoning was not perfectly articulated. Michigan courts will affirm a correct result reached for the wrong reason.
Key Takeaways
- LARA has statutory authority under MCL 338.2156(4) to restrict elevator journeyman licenses to specific types of elevator work, and to require proof of supervisory experience in each specific work type as a condition of licensure. Long tenure in the industry does not substitute for the required category of experience.
- Michigan’s elevator licensing framework distinguishes between maintenance/repair work (Type B) and installation/construction/alteration work (Type A). An applicant cannot bootstrap Type B experience into a Type A license qualification.
- A trial court that vacates a properly authorized administrative agency decision has palpably erred, and a successor judge may grant reconsideration to reinstate the agency’s decision. The Court of Appeals will affirm the correct result even if the successor judge articulated imperfect reasons.
- Practitioners handling occupational licensing denials in Michigan should note that LARA’s administrative rules classifying license types are given deference when they implement an express statutory grant of authority to restrict licenses by work type.
Why It Matters
Bunkelman v. DLARA is useful for practitioners who handle occupational licensing appeals under Michigan’s administrative law framework. The decision confirms that LARA’s authority to tier elevator journeyman licenses by work type is grounded in the plain text of the ELA and is not merely an extra-statutory administrative preference. An applicant who has spent a career doing maintenance and repair work cannot point to the length of that experience as a substitute for supervisory experience in installation and construction.
More broadly, the case reinforces that Michigan’s courts will defer to agency rule-making when the enabling statute expressly authorizes the agency to classify and restrict the licenses it issues. Challengers who do not substantively brief the validity of the classification rules will be found to have abandoned those arguments. The practical takeaway for industry members: before applying for a more expansive elevator license, ensure the application demonstrates experience in each specific type of work covered by that license, not just aggregate time in the industry.