Summary Disposition.
No. 123711. Defendant's assertion of the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.131, arguably raises a challenge to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. See Harris v. Vernier, 242 Mich App 306, 312-316 (2000); MCR 2.111(F)(2). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of MCL 418.161(1)(1) and (n). MCR 7.302(G)(1). Under § 161(1)(1), the court is to determine whether plaintiff was an employee in the service of defendants under any contract for hire, express or implied. See Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgt, Inc, 459 Mich 561 (1999). Under § 161(1)(n), the court is to determine whether plaintiff maintained a separate business as a day-laborer and whether plaintiff held himself out to the public as a day-laborer. The Wayne Circuit Court shall, on the existing record or after such evidentiary hearing as the court deems appropriate, submit its findings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court within 35 days of the date of this order. In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is denied. Jurisdiction is retained. Court of Appeals No. 236588.