BLAIR MOODY, JR., J.

We granted leave in these consolidated worker's compensation cases in order to consider whether 1975 PA 34, MCLA 418.862; MSA 17.237(862), comports, on its face and as applied, with certain fundamental constitutional mandates. 1975 PA 34 is commonly referred to as the "70% statute". It provides that a claim for review filed by a self-insured employer or a carrier from a worker's compensation award entered by a hearing referee shall not operate as a stay of payment to the claimant of 70% of the weekly benefit.

The statute also provides, in its disputed part, that if the weekly benefit is reduced or rescinded by a final determination upon appeal, the self-insured employer or carrier shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund for compensation paid during the appellate process in excess of the amount finally determined.

The appellant employers, insurance carriers and self-insurers contend that the foregoing legislative enactment is unconstitutional. They maintain, inter alia, that the instant statute violates (a) various due process guarantees, both procedural and substantive, as articulated in both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution of 1963; (b) traditional equal protection guarantees as set forth in both Constitutions, and (c) certain proscriptions against the impairment of contracts as found in both Constitutions. Lastly (d) the appellants maintain the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board exceeds the scope of its authority when it dismisses appeals for noncompliance with the 70% statute.

We have examined all of appellants' contentions in the light of the broad philosophical tenets underpinning Michigan's Worker's Disability Compensation Act; we have scrutinized both the specific language of the 70% statute and the legislative intent underlying the act; and we have looked to established legal precedent in both our jurisdiction and others in examining the appellants' legal and constitutional positions. We conclude that 1975 PA 34, the "70% statute", is constitutional on its face and as applied.

Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision which held the instant statute constitutional and found that the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board does not exceed its authority by dismissing the appeals of appellants who do not comply with the statute's mandates.

I. FACTS

There is no dispute as to the "facts" in the instant case. Therefore, we adopt the Court of Appeals statement of facts:

"This case consists of several consolidated appeals from orders of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (hereinafter Appeal Board) dismissing the defendants' appeals from decisions of hearing referees for failure to comply with 1975 PA 34; MCLA 418.862; MSA 17.237(862). The appeals are by leave granted and challenge the constitutionality of that statute and the Appeal Board's authority to enforce the statute by dismissing appeals.

"The factual setting for this appeal is illustrated by the history of Turner v General Motors. Turner was awarded weekly benefits by a workmen's compensation hearing referee. Defendant filed an application for review with the Appeal Board. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for defendant's failure to comply with 1975 PA 34. Defendant objected to the motion, asserting that the act was unconstitutional. The Appeal Board notified defendant that failure to comply with the act might result in dismissal of its appeal. Defendant failed to comply with the act, and the Appeal Board dismissed defendant's appeal. The instant appeal followed." Turner v General Motors Corp, 70 Mich. App. 532, 535; 246 N.W.2d 631 (1976).

As the Court of Appeals implies, the factual sequences in McAvoy v H B Sherman Co and Stricklin v American Chain Cable Co, the consolidated cases, are identical to the Turner v General Motors sequence. Furthermore, the legal arguments presented by the defendant-appellant employers and insurance carriers as to the constitutionality of 1975 PA 34 are virtually identical in all these cases.

This Court granted leave in the Turner et al cases on October 13, 1976, and consolidated them with Michigan Self-Insurers' Ass'n v Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, 70 Mich. App. 565, 566-567; 246 N.W.2d 316 (1976). The legal issues in Self-Insurers are identical with those in Turner et al. The Court of Appeals pointed out this fact in its brief opinion in Self-Insurers:

"Defendants [Bureau of Worker's Compensation] appeal as of right from the December 8, 1975, order of the Ingham County Circuit Court granting a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff [Michigan Self-Insurers' Association] and declaring unconstitutional 1975 PA 34; MCLA 418.862; MSA 17.237(862), and permanently enjoining enforcement of the act by the defendants.

"This Court's opinion in Turner v General Motors, 70 Mich. App. 532; 246 N.W.2d 631 (1976), answers the meritorious issues raised by the parties to this appeal.

* * *

"[T]he act is not invalid under Const 1963, art 6, § 28. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the injunction is hereby dissolved. No costs."

Therefore, the Michigan Self-Insurers' Association joins the various employers and carriers as the appellants herein. Turner, McAvoy, Stricklin and the Worker's Compensation Bureau et al are the appellees.

II. DUE PROCESS

This Court perceives the principal issue in this case to be whether 1975 PA 34, MCLA 418.862; MSA 17.237(862) provides for a taking of property from self-insured employers or carriers without procedural or substantive due process of law.

1975 PA 34 provides for the following legislative schema:

"A claim for review filed pursuant to sections 859 or 861 shall not operate as a stay of payment to the claimant of 70% of the weekly benefit required by the terms of the hearing referee's award. Payment shall commence as of the date of the hearing referee's award and shall continue until final determination of the appeal or for a shorter period if specified in the award. Benefits accruing prior to the referee's award shall be withheld until final determination of the appeal. If the weekly benefit is reduced or rescinded by a final determination, the carrier shall be entitled to reimbursement in a sum equal to the compensation paid pending the appeal in excess of the amount finally determined. Reimbursement shall be paid upon audit and proper voucher from the second injury fund established in chapter 5. If the award is affirmed by a final determination, the carrier shall pay all compensation which has become due under the provisions of the award, less any compensation already paid. Interest shall not be paid on amounts paid pending final determination. Payments made to the claimant during the appeal period shall be considered as accrued compensation for purposes of determining attorneys' fees under the rules of the bureau."

Appellants maintain that this statute denies them procedural due process in that it requires payment of 70% of the hearing referee's award pending appeal — without the traditional stay of payment during the appellate process. Appellants further contend that this "70%" provision effectively denies them their right to appeal as guaranteed by Const 1963, art 6, § 28.

Appellants also maintain that the 70% statute denies them substantive due process in that any reimbursement which they receive after a hearing referee's award is reversed must come from the Second Injury Fund, a fund which the appellants themselves are required to keep solvent. Appellants contend that this reimbursement procedure constitutes a confiscatory taking of property and thus renders the statute unconstitutional. We will examine these two due process issues separately.

A. Procedural Due Process: Stays

"A claim for review filed pursuant to sections 859 or 861 shall not operate as a stay of payment to the claimant of 70% of the weekly benefit required by the terms of the hearing referee's award. Payment shall commence as of the date of the hearing referee's award and shall continue until final determination of the appeal or for a shorter period if specified in the award."

The threshold question for this Court is whether the foregoing language of the 70% statute violates procedural due process in that it does not provide for an automatic stay of a hearing referee's award to a claimant pending an appeal by the employer.

The test by which courts decide whether a particular legislative enactment comports with due process has been stated and restated ad infinitum. We prefer the traditional statement found in Nebbia v New York, 291 U.S. 502, 525; 54 S Ct 505; 78 L Ed 940 (1934):

"The Fifth Amendment, in the field of federal activity, and the Fourteenth, as respects state action, do not prohibit governmental regulation for the public welfare. They merely condition the exertion of the admitted power, by securing that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process. And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. It results that a regulation valid for one sort of business, or in given circumstances, may be invalid for another sort, or for the same business under other circumstances, because the reasonableness of each regulation depends upon the relevant facts."

See also Grubaugh v City of St Johns, 384 Mich. 165; 180 N.W.2d 778 (1970).

In determining, then, whether the 70% statute is "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious", and whether the means selected bear "a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained", we must look to (1) the overall objective of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act and (2) the specific objective of the 70% provision itself, and how that objective is implemented.

Professor Larson, in his classic treatise on worker's compensation law, succinctly stated the social philosophy underlying any worker's compensation system:

"The ultimate social philosophy behind compensation liability is belief in the wisdom of providing, in the most efficient, most dignified, and most certain form, financial and medical benefits for the victims of work-connected injuries which an enlightened community would feel obliged to provide in any case in some less satisfactory form, and of allocating the burden of these payments to the most appropriate source of payment, the consumer of the product." 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2.20.

Any worker's compensation schema has, therefore, as its primary goal the delivery of sustaining benefits to a disabled employee as soon as possible after an injury occurs, regardless of any traditional tort concepts of liability. The objective of the social legislation is to provide the disabled worker with benefits during the period of his disability so that the worker and his dependents may survive (literally) the catastrophe which the temporary cessation of necessary income occasions. The inherent rationality of worker's compensation legislation has stood unchallenged for decades. Its real and substantial relation to a valid legislative objective has successfully withstood due process challenges and is firmly established as a bellwether of Twentieth Century social legislation. See, for example, New York C R Co v White, 243 U.S. 188; 37 S Ct 247; 61 L Ed 667 (1917).

Historically, however, a profound injustice has plagued this piece of social legislation in Michigan, as well as in other states. Due to both the increasing number and sophistication of appeals by employers and carriers of worker's compensation awards, workers who have been awarded benefits and are indeed ultimately found entitled to such benefits because of legitimate disabilities, must often wait years to begin receiving compensation while the appellate process slowly grinds to a final conclusion.

In the interim, workers and their families are denied the benefits which were intended under the initial philosophy of worker's compensation to sustain them through this period of disability. The appellate process hamstrings the delivery of immediate benefits and contributes to the very social ill which worker's compensation acts sought to remedy.

It is from this perspective that we must examine the advent of the 70% statute. 1975 PA 34 represents an attempt by the Legislature to instill new vitality into the Worker's Disability Compensation Act. The Legislature evidently realized that the ultimate goal of the worker's compensation schema was being thwarted by an appellate process which was merely a traditional carry-over from existing tort concepts of liability. Workers were not receiving the benefits awarded by the referees and were often subject to being whipsawed into settlements for lesser benefits in order to avoid the lengthy appellate process.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recognized these very same abuses in commenting upon the enactment by its Legislature of a similar "no-stay" provision:

"The injured worker was confronted with an even more acute problem when the employer appealed. He did not receive his compensation promptly. At a time when he was unable to work and usually in need of medical attention with no income to support himself and his family, he was faced with what appeared to be a seemingly endless and costly litigation. As a result, either claims were abandoned or the injured worker was harassed into accepting an inadequate lump-sum settlement. It was obvious that the Legislature, when it enacted § 28-35-33, intended to eliminate the evils connected with the then existing law by providing that an injured worker who has successfully prosecuted his petition would be promptly compensated * * *." Merchants Mutual Ins Co v Newport Hospital, 108 R.I. 86, 91; 272 A.2d 329, 331 (1971).

Accord Employers' Mutual Ins Co v Industrial Commission, 65 Colo. 283; 176 P. 314 (1918).

The Michigan Legislature remedied this social ill by providing that "[a] claim for review * * * shall not operate as a stay of payment to the claimant of 70% of the weekly benefit required by the terms of the hearing referee's award".

It is not this Court's role to decide whether the Legislature acted wisely or unwisely in enacting this statute. We will not substitute our own social and economic beliefs for those of the Legislature, which is elected by the people to pass laws. Ferguson v Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726; 83 S Ct 1028; 10 L Ed 2d 93 (1963). We are only concerned that the enacted law shall not be "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained".

In the case at bar, the Legislature decided not to stay, pending appeal, 70% of the weekly benefits due a claimant, after a hearing referee's award We do not find that this legislative enactment violates procedural due process. The employers and carriers receive a fair, impartial and full initial determination before an administrative judge (hearing referee); this they do not deny. Their right to appeal that award remains intact. The worker/claimant does not receive the entire award; only that percentage of the award which statistically reflects the ratio of ultimate affirmances. Given the general social philosophy underlying the Worker's Disability Compensation Act and the abuses which have arisen under the traditional 100%-stay-pending-appeal system, we cannot agree that the 70% statute impinges upon any of the appellants' traditional due process rights. Due process does not necessarily guarantee appellant employers and carriers a right to a complete stay of benefits while an award, which was entered with full due process accorded, is appealed to a higher tribunal.

In fact, this Court recognizes that it is arguable that the staying of all benefits awarded, pending appeal, could conceivably constitute a denial of claimants' due process rights. In California Dep't of Human Resources Development v Java, 402 U.S. 121, 134; 91 S Ct 1347; 28 L Ed 2d 666 (1971), the United States Supreme Court alludes to the same problem. While Java admittedly arose out of different factual context and dealt with the complex interplay of Federal-state guidelines regarding the prompt payment of unemployment benefits, the underlying policy issue is the same one at issue here. The Court required the payment of substitute wage benefits to a claimant without a stay pending appeal when a claimant has been awarded those benefits after a full initial hearing. The Supreme Court reasoned thus:

"It would frustrate one of the Act's basic purposes — providing a `substitute' for wages — to permit an employer to ignore the initial interview or fail to assert and document a claimed defense, and then effectuate cessation of payments by asserting a defense to the claim by way of appeal. If the employer fails to present any evidence, he has in effect defaulted, and neither he nor the State can with justification complain if, on a prima facie showing, benefits are allowed. If the employer's defenses are not accepted and the claim is allowed, that also constitutes a determination that the benefits are `due.'" (Emphasis added.)

The "no-stay" provision of 1975 PA 34 not only comports with procedural due process guarantees as regards employers and carriers, but it also extends a quantum of due process to disabled employees who have been awarded benefits but are denied them by a strangulating appellate process.

Appellants further contend that the "no-stay" provision of 1975 PA 34 (a) effectively denies their right to judicial review of administrative decisions as guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, art 6, § 28, and (b) allows for the payment of 70% benefits even after an appellate tribunal has reversed the hearing referee. Both contentions lack merit.

Appellants are correct in their assertion that Const 1963, art 6, § 28, guarantees judicial review of administrative decisions:

"All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are authorized by law; and, in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record. Findings of fact in workmen's compensation proceedings shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud unless otherwise provided by law."

However, we find nothing in the 70% statute or the Worker's Disability Compensation Act as a whole which violates this constitutional mandate. The Worker's Disability Compensation Act does provide for a review of the decisions made by the Worker's Compensation Bureau:

"If a claim for review is filed, the board shall promptly review the order, together with the records of the hearing; it may hear the parties, together with such additional evidence as it in its discretion may allow them to submit and shall file its order with the records of the proceedings. The review and hearing may be held at its offices in Lansing, or elsewhere, as the board deems advisable. Where the employer or carrier files a claim for review to the board or appeals to the court of appeals or supreme court, a copy of the testimony, depositions and other documents necessary for the appeal shall be furnished by the employer or carrier to the employee or his attorney." MCLA 418.859; MSA 17.237(859).

"The findings of fact made by the board acting within its powers, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive. The court of appeals and the supreme court shall have power to review questions of law involved in any final order of the board, if application is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after such order by any method permissible under the rules of the courts of the laws of this state." MCLA 418.861; MSA 17.237(861).

The constitutional provision cited was concerned with (1) providing for judicial review of rulings by administrative agencies, and (2) establishing a standard of review for the findings of fact made by administrative agencies. Nowhere in this constitutional stricture is it stated or implied that this right to review includes an automatic stay of the initial award made by the hearing referee (administrative judge). It would be inaccurate to contend that art 6, § 28, guarantees an unencumbered, de novo right to appeal. The very wording of the provision states otherwise. Article 6, § 28, specially provides that such rulings "shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law". (Emphasis added.)

The phrase "as provided by law" clearly vests the Legislature with the authority to exert substantial control over the mechanics of how administrative decisions are to be appealed. Viculin v Dept of Civil Service, 386 Mich. 375; 192 N.W.2d 449 (1971). We believe that it is perfectly reasonable, given the aforementioned problems with delivering worker's compensation benefits to disabled employees, that the Legislature decide that the original award shall not be stayed pending the appeal. Certainly such a "no-stay" provision does not constitute a denial of the right to appeal.

It is recognized that the 70% "no-stay" provision of 1975 PA 34 might limit or inhibit strategically or tactically the number of appeals taken by an employer or carrier. However, as we construe the legislation, this is precisely one of the ancillary goals of the act: to discourage marginal or frivolous appeals.

Certainly no employer or carrier will be discouraged from pursuing a meritorious appeal. The 70% no-stay "payment shall commence as of the date of hearing referee's award and shall continue until final determination of the appeal". If an employer or carrier is successful upon appeal and "the weekly benefit is reduced or rescinded by a final determination", the employer or carrier will have only paid the 70% benefits for the interim period between the initial award and its subsequent reduction or rescission. It is patently illogical to assume that an employer or carrier will not press a meritorious appeal simply because he is required to pay 70% benefits before an appeal can be completed. Nor does such payment render the appellate process meaningless when one considers the potential liability present in many cases.

Furthermore, we do not agree with the construction that the interim 70% payments continue even though the hearing referee's award is overturned at some juncture during the appellate process. The statute specifically provides that "[p]ayment shall commence as of the date of the hearing referee's award and shall continue until final determination of the appeal * * *". (Emphasis added.)

It would yield an absurd result to construe the phrase "until final determination of the appeal" as "until completion of the entire appellate process". See In re Petition of State Highway Commission, 383 Mich. 709; 178 N.W.2d 923 (1970). The entire appellate process could conceivably include appeals either by the claimant or by the employer or carrier to the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. The logical consequence of the statute's wording indicates that a claimant is entitled to 70% benefits awarded by a hearing referee until such time as the hearing referee's award is reduced or rescinded upon an appeal. If the hearing referee's award, the prerequisite for putting the entire legislative schema in motion, is vacated at any appellate stage, the 70% benefits are terminated. If at any point on appeal the benefits are reduced, the 70% no-stay provision applies only to the new award (provided, of course, another appeal is taken).

Likewise, if a hearing referee's award which was vacated or modified at a lower appellate level is reinstated at a higher appellate level, the 70% benefits resume. This interpretation is consistent with the Legislature's intent as we read the statute. The hearing referee's initial award is the catalyst which initiates the 70% benefits. During the various appellate steps, it is that initial hearing referee's award and its eventual disposition which governs when 70% benefits are to be paid or not paid, until the appellate process is completed.

Thus, it can readily be seen that the 70% "no-stay" provision of 1975 PA 34 ultimately encourages all parties to expedite appeals. Employers and carriers certainly will seek prompt appellate relief in cases where they believe unjustified benefits are awarded. Claimants will also seek prompt appellate finalization in most cases because they will wish to obtain the 30% benefits held pending final disposition. In the meantime, the 70% benefits initially awarded will sustain the claimants during this sometimes lengthy process and remove any unfair bargaining leverage employers or carriers exercise during the interim.

We find nothing unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious about this legislative plan and believe the means selected, to wit, the 70% no-stay provision, bears a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.

B. Substantive Due Process: Reimbursement

"If the weekly benefit is reduced or rescinded by a final determination, the carrier shall be entitled to reimbursement in a sum equal to the compensation paid pending the appeal in excess of the amount finally determined. Reimbursement shall be paid upon audit and proper voucher from the second injury fund established in chapter 5."

Appellant carriers contend in this case that the reimbursement provision of 1975 PA 34 provides for an unconstitutional taking of property without substantive due process of law because the reimbursement to which appellants are entitled, if they are successful on appeal, must come from the Second Injury Fund, and not from the recipients of the 70% benefits. Appellants reason that since they are required to finance the Second Injury Fund they are, in fact, required to reimburse themselves for benefits paid but not owed. This, they maintain, constitutes a confiscatory taking of property without due process.

While we agree with appellant carriers' reading of the statutory provision, we do not agree that provision provides for an unconstitutional "taking".

The clear wording of the statute provides that reimbursement for benefits paid during the pendency of an appeal, which subsequently reduces or rescinds those benefits, "shall be paid * * * from the second injury fund". The word "shall" clearly means that payment is mandatory or imperative from the fund. Southfield Twp v Drainage Board for 12 Towns Relief Drains, 357 Mich. 59; 97 N.W.2d 821 (1959).

However, appellant carrier's position regarding the constitutionality of this reimbursement scheme is premised on two incorrect assumptions: (1) that reimbursement is constitutionally mandated and (2) that reimbursement from a state insurance fund, such as the Second Injury Fund, constitutes "self-reimbursement".

While 1975 PA 34 provides for reimbursement, we submit that the "no-stay" provision of the statute would still be constitutional even if no method of reimbursement were provided for in the statute. The Legislature reasonably found that the withholding of compensation due claimants pending appeal operated to frustrate the general purpose of the act. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the Legislature, within the constitutional exercise of its police power, could require employers and their carriers to bear the risk of paying benefits during the limited pendency of an appeal.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in construing the "no-stay" provision in its worker's compensation act. The Court held the lack of a reimbursement clause did not render its no-stay provision constitutionally infirm:

"Secondly, we agree that the statute makes no provision for recoupment of payments made, in the event that the decision of the commissioner is overturned on appeal. We hold that no such right of recoupment was implied or intended. See Hagerty v Great American Indemnity Co, 106 N.H. 425; 213 A.2d 424 (1965). The absence of provision therefor is to us an indication of the legislative intent that no such right should arise.

"It has long been established that workmen's compensation is remedial in character, designed to provide, in substitution for unsatisfactory common-law remedies in tort, a liability without fault for limited compensation, capable of ready and early determination. Mulhall v [Nashua Manufacturing] Co, 80 N.H. 194, 196-199; 115 A 449, 453 (1921); see Carbonneau v [Hoosier Engineering] Co, 96 N.H. 240, 244; 73 A.2d 802, 806 (1950). The provisions of the 1971 amendment were designed to further this purpose, and to assure prompt payment of compensation to workmen found to be entitled thereto, after administrative hearing of the parties involved.

"Granted that in the event of successful appeals by employers, the statute will place upon them a new or additional burden. The legislature could reasonably find that the withholding of compensation by employers pending appeal had operated to frustrate the purposes of the law. Hence in the exercise of the police power, it could properly require employers, and more broadly the enterprises which they represent, to bear for a limited period the risk of payments made during appeal, rather than the injured employee, who as the plaintiffs point out is usually in no financial position to carry that risk." (Citations omitted.) Hartford Accident Indemnity Co v Duvall, 113 N.H. 28, 31; 300 A.2d 732, 734 (1973).

The rationale and holding of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, to which we subscribe, reflects what we perceive to be the majority position in most states which have incorporated no-stay provisions into their worker's compensation schemes. The Legislature has an option as to whether or not it wishes to provide for reimbursement. However, the Legislature's choice regarding provision for reimbursement in no way affects the ultimate constitutionality of the no-stay provision. See, for example, Merchants Mutual Ins Co v Newport Hospital, 108 R.I. 86; 272 A.2d 329 (1971). Also see St Paul Fire Marine Ins Co v Treadwell, 263 Md. 430; 283 A.2d 601 (1971); Tompkins v George Rinner Construction Co, 196 Kan. 244; 409 P.2d 1001 (1966), and the cases cited therein.

The Michigan Legislature elected to provide for a unitary system of reimbursement for carriers via the Second Injury Fund; this was the Legislature's prerogative and we respect it. However, the constitutionality of 1975 PA 34's no-stay provision does not hinge on the Legislature's so providing.

While we need not address appellant carriers' second assumption since reimbursement is not constitutionally mandated, nevertheless we would reject outright the notion that reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund constitutes "self-reimbursement" and is therefore a confiscatory taking.

The Second Injury Fund is a state insurance fund created by the Legislature to insure carriers and self-insured employers against certain losses occurring due to worker's compensation claims. MCLA 418.501 et seq.; MSA 17.237(501) et seq. See also Copperweld Steel Co v Industrial Commission, 143 Ohio St. 591; 56 N.E.2d 154 (1944). The Second Injury Fund does not belong to the carriers. No employer or carrier has a direct or vested interest in the fund. Rather, the carriers and self-insured employers pay annual assessments to the fund. Once paid, these assessments become state or public moneys. Like any insurance scheme, the Second Injury Fund spreads the risk of worker's compensation among all the self-insured employers and carriers.

It would be improper to conclude that because self-insured employers and carriers are required by law to pay into the fund, reimbursements received from the fund constitute "self-reimbursement". Pursuant to traditional insurance concepts, the state reimburses the self-insured employers or carriers from assessed premiums. Some employers and carriers receive substantial reimbursements from the fund; others receive nothing. Nevertheless all involved are required to pay insurance premiums into the fund, predicated upon their proportional share of the total funds disbursed during the previous year. Since the Second Injury Fund is a creature of the state, no property right would inure to the employers or carriers. Without a corresponding property right, it could not be maintained that the instant reimbursement provision constitutes a confiscatory taking without due process of law.

III. EQUAL PROTECTION

Appellants raise several issues concerning the constitutionality of 1975 PA 34 under the equal protection clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. Only one of those issues merits discussion.

The appellant self-insured employers and carriers submit that 1975 PA 34 denies them equal protection of the law because the legislative classifications are arbitrary, and not reasonably related to the object of the legislation. Specifically, the appellants suggest that the "70% statute" invidiously discriminates among a common class of litigants: namely, all appellants of worker's compensation decisions. The appellants maintain that employers and carriers are inordinately burdened by the statute because they must pay 70% of the hearing referee's award pending appeal and are therefore discouraged from exercising their right to appeal. On the other hand, some appellants assert 1975 PA 34 encourages claimants to press frivolous appeals since they continue to receive benefits not due.

We have examined this argument, at least tangentially, under our due process analysis and rejected it. We also reject this argument under equal protection analysis.

The appellants' position is based upon two obviously erroneous premises: (1) that the legislative classification drawn involves all appellants of worker's compensation awards, and (2) that the classification system, whatever it may be, is either arbitrary or not reasonably related to the object of the legislation.

The test to be applied in deciding whether a particular statute comports with equal protection guarantees was stated by this Court in Alexander v Detroit, 392 Mich. 30, 35-36; 219 N.W.2d 41 (1974):

"The question whether or not a particular legislative enactment violates equal protection for want of proper classification of subject individuals or entities is not susceptible to facile determination. Voluminous case law exists on the subject of the appropriate test to be utilized in such an analysis. In three relatively recent majority opinions of this Court, Chief Justice (then Justice) T.M. KAVANAGH pulled together the threads of past opinions of our Court and the United States Supreme Court, essentially elucidating two tests to guide judicial scrutiny of suspect enactments:

"(1) Are the enactment's classifications based on natural distinguishing characteristics and do they bear a reasonable relationship to the object of the legislation?

"(2) Are all persons of the same class included and affected alike or are immunities or privileges extended to an arbitrary or unreasonable class while denied to others of like kind?" (Citations omitted.)

In Manistee Bank Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich. 655, 668; 232 N.W.2d 636 (1975), this Court discussed the two-tiered approach to equal protection and its shifting burden of proof:

"If the interest is `fundamental' or the classification `suspect', the court applies a `strict scrutiny' test requiring the state to show a `compelling' interest which justifies the classification. Rarely have courts sustained legislation subjected to this standard of review.

"Other legislation, principally social and economic, is subjected to review under the traditional equal protection test. The burden is on the person challenging the classification to show that it is without reasonable justification. It has been said that `[a] statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it'. A classification will stand unless it is shown to be `essentially arbitrary'. Few statutes have been found so wanting in `rationality' as to fail to satisfy the `essentially arbitrary' test."

In the case at bar, it becomes immediately apparent that the thrust of the legislation challenged is primarily social and economic. The legislation involved deals with property rights, not fundamental rights. Therefore, the burden is on the appellants to show the classification is arbitrary and does not bear a rational relation to the object of the legislation. The appellants fail to meet their burden.

The appellants erroneously maintain that the class drawn by the legislature in 1975 PA 34 is all appellants of worker's compensation decisions. Accordingly, appellants contend that immunities-privileges extended to worker's compensation appellants who happen to be employees-claimants are denied to other appellants, i.e., self-insurers and carriers. The problem with appellants' contention is that they misconceive the class drawn by the Legislature. The class is not "all appellants", but rather "all self-insured employers and carriers". Then the question naturally becomes whether all self-insured employers and carriers are treated the same? The answer to this rhetorical question is "yes"; all employers and carriers are required to pay claimants 70% benefits pending any appeal taken by them (i.e., employers and carriers) from an award. The class as conceived by the Legislature treats carriers and self-insurers as similarly situated persons and is obviously reasonable.

However, even granting appellants' premise that the class created by 1975 PA 34 ("all appellants") treats self-insured employers and carriers differently on appeal from employees-claimants, we would still find that the legislative classification scheme is not essentially arbitrary and bears a rational relation to the object of the legislation. The Court of Appeals ably discussed this point in its opinion:

"The object of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to persons suffering a disability arising from their employment. Such compensation, to be effective, obviously must be provided promptly. So the act provides. MCLA 418.801; MSA 17.237(801). Public Act 34 effectuates this purpose by providing for payment to the claimant of part of the award granted by a hearing referee. Why the claimant should not be entitled to such payment pending the employer's appeal is not answered by the defendants.

"Pending appeal, money representing part of the amount awarded by the hearing referee is going to be in the hands of either the employer or the employee. It certainly doesn't fly in the face of reason to conclude that the disabled worker should receive part of that award during that period of time. The hearing referee has previously determined that the employee is entitled to the award. Because of his disability, the employee needs the money immediately, not months or years hence. Any discrimination against the employer by the imposition of a heavier risk of appeal under this procedure is clearly not irrational or unrelated to the object of the act." Turner, supra, 540-541.

Finally, appellants' claim that employees-claimants are encouraged by the 70% statute to press frivolous appeals is patently illogical. Unless the hearing referee initially finds disability, the 70% benefits are never "triggered". Therefore, when the hearing referee finds for the employee-claimant, the next move, i.e., to appeal or not to appeal, belongs to the employer or carrier. The employees-claimants will always be the appellees at this stage.

As we explained supra, if the claimant's award is rescinded or reduced, the benefits are then terminated or modified. It is only at this stage that the claimants become the appellants. Hence, it becomes apparent that 1975 PA 34 does not encourage employees-claimants to drag along useless appeals.

IV. RETROACTIVITY

The appellants in these consolidated cases next challenge the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board's application of 1975 PA 34 to cases involving injuries or appeals which occurred prior to the effective date of the act, May 6, 1975.

Specifically, appellants contend that the application of the 70% statute to cases involving injuries incurred or appeals taken by employers before the effective date of the act constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations. Appellants reason that a self-insured employer's or carrier's liability to an injured employee cannot exceed the statutory limit in effect on the date of injury. Appellants maintain that this is true because the liability for benefits is essentially contractual; therefore the existing employment contract establishes the extent of that liability.

Appellants also contend that any retroactive application of the act improperly alters existing substantive law in that it changes the amount of an employer's liability, his right to reimbursement, and the right of the employer to defend against claims of liability.

As the Court of Appeals pointed out, appellants' arguments are once again inaptly premised. (1) The Legislature possesses the requisite authority to alter the method of enforcing pre-existing rights. The Legislature can elect to modify the remedies for the enforcement of a contract without violating "impairment of contract" prohibitions. (2) The 70% statute does not increase an employer's or carrier's substantive liability for injuries incurred or appeals taken by employers before the act's effective date.

It must be remembered from the outset that 1975 PA 34, and Worker's Disability Compensation Act as a whole, is essentially remedial legislation. Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich. 135, 154; 85 N.W.2d 97 (1957). Furthermore, this Court has held that remedies for the enforcement of a contract may be modified without violating the impairment of contract clauses. In Lahti v Fosterling, 357 Mich. 578; 99 N.W.2d 490 (1959), this Court specifically held that medical benefits due under the existing worker's compensation act could be extended without impairing existing contractual relationships.

Our Court, relying on a New York decision, reasoned thus:

"In Matter of Schmidt v Wolf Contracting Co, 269 App. Div. 201; 55 N.Y.S.2d 162, the court considered the aims and purposes of the workmen's compensation law in attempting to arrive at the intent of the legislature to apply a retroactive amendment to workmen injured prior to the effective date of the act, held the legislature had the right to so amend, and applied retrospectively the amended provisions. It further stated it was unreasonable to assume that the legislature intended that a workman who suffers injury on one date is any less affected than one injured on a subsequent date of the same year. With reference to the defense that the contract between the employer and its insurance carrier is impaired by such an amendment and that the statute violates the due process clauses of the State constitution and the Constitution of the United States, the court said (pp 207, 208):

"`That argument is without merit. * * *

"`Liability under the workmen's compensation law is contractual, the amendment is not thereby violative of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. The police power of the State may be exercised to affect the due process of law clause as well as the impairment of contract clause of the Federal Constitution.

"`The subject matter of workmen's compensation reposes within the control of the legislature.

"`A law enacted pursuant to rightful authority is proper, and private contracts are entered into subject to that governmental authority.'" Lahti, supra, 592.

The Court in Lahti reached the identical conclusion we posit in the case at bar:

"Believing as we do that no vested right or contractual right exists that prohibits the legislature from making a change in the remedies afforded employees under the workmen's compensation law, and keeping in mind the express primary purpose of the act to transfer to industry the expense of injuries to employees growing out of and in the course of their employment, it is apparent to us that the legislature intended * * * [citation omitted] to substitute for the existing remedies under the act some expansion thereof."

As for appellants' second contention, the 70% statute clearly does not retroactively alter existing substantive law by changing the amount of the employer's liability. The 70% statute only effectuates a procedural change; employers and carriers are now required to make immediate payment pending the appeal. However, the substantive benefits (the "100%" total) ultimately owed, or not owed, remain exactly the same.

Finally, amendatory statutes relating to procedure, such as the one we are concerned with in the instant case, are intended to be applied retroactively in any event, absent legislative expression to the contrary. Hansen-Snyder Co v General Motors Corp, 371 Mich. 480; 124 N.W.2d 286 (1963). On June 16, 1975, the Legislature went so far as to specifically declare that 1975 PA 34 was to be applied to cases arising before the act's effective date:

"It was also the clear and distinct intent of the Michigan Legislature, when enacting Act No 34 of the Public Acts of 1975, that section 862 was to be construed retroactive concerning all cases, pending an appeal, as well as new cases on appeal after the date of May 6, 1975 * * *." Senate Concurrent Resolution No 164, 1975 Senate Journal, No 70, pp 1230-1231.

Therefore, we hold that 1975 PA 34 neither impairs existing contracts nor retroactively changes existing substantive law. The act only retroactively changes existing procedural remedies; those changes were consciously provided for by legislative fiat.

V. DISMISSAL: NONCOMPLIANCE

In their final issue, appellants contend that the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) exceeds its authority in dismissing appeals by employers or carriers for noncompliance with 1975 PA 34.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that power of the WCAB to dismiss appeals for noncompliance with 1975 PA 34 is necessarily implied from the statute itself:

"The power of the Appeal Board to dismiss an employer's appeal for failure to comply with PA 34 is necessarily implied from the act. Were it not, the act would become meaningless; the very problem PA 34 was designed to alleviate would persist — the award of the disabled worker remaining unpaid while judicial enforcement of the act is sought. We cannot read the Legislature's intent as being directly contrary to its clear expression of policy." 70 Mich. App. 544.

The WCAB also correctly reasoned that the 70% statute operates as a condition precedent for the perfection of an appeal and that failure to comply with the statute's mandate necessitates a dismissal:

"It is clear that this legislation is a prerequisite for the perfecting of an appeal and that failure to comply with the statutory mandate or this order will result in a dismissal. Should defendant, therefore, refuse to comply then a subsequent order dismissing its claim for review will issue forthwith in the same manner that such orders are issued for failure to properly perfect an appeal as where there is a failure to file a transcript." Karbel v Greyhound Food Management, 1975 WCABO 1851, 1859.

Also see Java, supra.

The appellants in these consolidated cases were all given written notice that dismissal orders would enter if they did not comply with 1975 PA 34. Furthermore, the WCAB's decision in Karbel, a precedential determination, accompanied that notice. None of the parties claims that proper notice was denied.

Therefore we are unwilling to conclude that WCAB exceeds its authority when, in a contested case, it dismisses appeals for noncompliance with 1975 PA 34.

VI. CONCLUSION

We affirm the Court of Appeals. The "70%" statute, 1975 PA 34, MCLA 418.862; MSA 17.237(862), is constitutional. However, we reverse the Court of Appeals finding that reimbursement is not mandated from the Second Injury Fund, MCLA 418.501 et seq.; MSA 17.237(501) et seq. The clear wording of the statute mandates exclusive reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund for 70% benefits paid pending appeal in excess of the amount finally determined. Finally, we hold that the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board's authority to dismiss appeals for noncompliance is necessarily implied from the act or the act becomes meaningless.

Affirmed as modified. No costs, a public question.

KAVANAGH, C.J., and WILLIAMS, LEVIN, FITZGERALD, and RYAN, JJ., concurred with BLAIR MOODY, JR., J.