In Aquilina v. General Motors Corp., 403 Mich. 206, 267 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. 1978), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a similar situation. In Aquilina, the Court reviewed a decision of the five person Michigan Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, in which one member authored the opinion, two members concurred-in-result without issuing a written opinion, one member dissented, and the final member concurred with the dissent. Id. at 924. One issue presented to the Michigan Supreme Court was: "Does the Board fulfill its responsibility to find facts with finality when the controlling opinion is signed by less than a majority of the appeal board members assigned to decide the case, with the other members comprising the majority concurring only in the result?" Id. at 925. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded the appeal board had not fulfilled its duty. Id. The Michigan Court concluded it could not discharge their review responsibilities unless the Appeal Board properly articulated its findings of fact. The Court stated: We cannot discharge our reviewing responsibilities unless a true majority reaches a decision based on stated facts. A decision is not properly reviewable when some of the majority concur only in the result and do not state the facts upon which that result is based. We must ask the board members to make a finding regarding all critical or crucial facts as well as the result when they choose not to sign the controlling opinion. Aquilina, 267 N.W.2d at 927. The Michigan Court vacated the Appeal Board's decision and remanded to the Board for additional proceedings consistent with the opinion. Id. at 927.