*1 Ed of the of Court BACH FLINT BOARDOF EDUCATION v 20, 1992, May Lansing.
Docket No. 135270. Submitted Decided 1992, appeal sought. December 9:45 a.m. Leave to sought compensation L. Donna Bach benefits for mental disability relating employment the Flint Board of hearing Compensa- Education. aBoth referee and the Workers’ Appeal claim, determining tion Board the difficulties, psychological they to the employment, were based on her unfounded employment compensable. tion of of events and were not MCL 17.237(301X2), 418.401(2)(b); MSA 17.237(401)(2)(b). plaintiff appealed. Appeals The Court of held: compensable Mental disabilities are under the Workers’ Dis- ability Compensation they signifi- Act where out of or arise are to, cantly aggravated, contributed or accelerated actual employment, events of not unfounded of events of employment or causes of disabilities. In this the evidence supported appeal board’s determination alleged disability perception mental arose of her unfounded employment. of events of Affirmed. 401(2)(b) Jansen, J., dissenting, stated of §§ require the workers’ act that a mental must arise out of "actual of events not unfounded perceptions thereof’; plaintiffs alleged that the mental disabil- ity employment; arose out of actual events that the case should be remanded for a determination the extent to which alleged disability. contributed to the Chayet Segel) (by Lenny Thurswell, & Weiner (Daryl Counsel), Royal, plaintiff. for the Cooley Bellairs Dean Siler & Moulton Rich- (by Cooley), for ard E. the defendant. Doctoroff, C.J., Before: Jansen Corri- gan, JJ. App 197 Opinion of the Court Donna L. Bach worked C.J. Plaintiff
Doctoroff, princi- school secretary elementary for an as 1979 until Feb- Epps, Sandra from November pal, February testified that on ruary *2 4, 1982, go simply did to to she not want work occasionally get Plaintiff had could of bed. physician psy- ánd a family been treated her regu- chologist began for emotional difficulties. She on September lar treatment a psychologist petition Plaintiff’s for workers’ alleged disabling neurosis "psychosis benefits physical problems” "[sjtress related caused by hearing from the of the job principal at school.” finding referee benefits proven problems had not her matters job her and that she "took offense to mere work.” ordinary daily which were matters of reached Compensation Appeal The Workers’ Board 30, 1990, stating: the same result on October specifically plaintiffs psychological diffi- We find culties, they were related at all plaintiffs employment with defendant school dis- trict, were related to and, tions of the events of her there- fore, compensability not fall stan- do within the 418.301(2) 17.237(301) of either dards [MSA 418.401(2)(b) (2)] 17.237(401)(2)(b)]. or MCL [MSA began Plaintiff she emo- having testified or 1981. She problems September tional October problems these "events” at attributed numerous work and her belief that a deterioration or "dis- tancing” relationship of her had oc- Epps Plaintiff appre- curred. claimed she became asking Epps questions hensive and that times at Epps harshly "snapped” answered un- "very her. An event that made feel Bach v Bd of Ed Flint op the Court voluntarily partic- comfortable” occurred when she ipated job exchange day. in a random for half a "really Epps Plaintiff was when had bothered” inform a substitute teacher that his services would longer slighted no Epps be needed. felt when complimented by an administrator about appearance Epps the had responsibility. a hall bulletin board that
arranged, something plaintiff as viewed felt "ill ease” about the way telephone she was instructed to answer the having and she did not "care for that to tell” callers was not available. complain Plaintiff did not or discuss these mat- Epps. Epps ters with plaintiff’s testified was unaware of trial, until
concerns felt person was a nice and overall a satisfac- tory employee. Epps employees said in- job exchange, plaintiff, including volved in the *3 happy many peo- seemed ple with the effort responsibility shared for the hall bulletin explained telephone board. also her answer- ing policy. job performance
Plaintiff’s was evaluated Epps spring performance spring. pleased each Plaintiff was her evaluation,
1980 which indicated that her satisfactory. plaintiff
was But was "very disappointed” spring with her 1981 evalua- plaintiff tion, which also indicated awas satisfac- tory employee. "upset” Plaintiff became and "an- gry” complain with herself not when she did about the fact that the second evaluation did show improvement. any Epps, In a to letter meeting later asked discuss the evaluation. A place agreed, plaintiff’s request, took to delete from the evaluation references plaintiff overstepped authority her on occasion and was "industrious.” 1981,
Plaintiff testified in the fall of when App 247 197 Mich the Court break, the summer to work after returned letter felt things got worse. diffi- have caused might evaluation job began She a transfer. thought about culties. She (e.g., headaches problems experience physical stomach) in of work days and missed in her a knot February could not work 1982. She felt she 1982. dis claimants, prove plaintiff had
Like all or a work- personal injury from a resulting ability 17.237(301) disease, 418.301(4); MSA MCL of and arising out (4), injury personal and "a 418.301(1); MSA MCL employment,” the course of 17.237(301X1). to establish both had relationship between and a injury personal Michigan Spe Miklik v workplace. and the injury Co, 364, 367; 329 NW2d cial Machine Corp, Motors v General Aquilina 206, 211; 267 Whether disability and whether was disabled by employment aggravated caused or was determination, Dres for the wcab’s factual issues Casting Corp, Rapids v Grand Die sler this Court which 250; 262 NW2d evidence any competent if supported by affirm will supra Aquilina, in the record. claimants, however, plaintiff also many
Unlike disability her mental had establish significant "in a aggravated 17.237(301X2) manner.” MCL 17.237(401)(2)(b). Further, 418.401(2)(b); MSA on claim had to rest mental plaintiff’s per not unfounded events of "actual *4 added requirements thereof.” These ceptions January 1980 PA effective the act Corp, v General Motors Iloyan 1982. See 595, 599; 468 it was claim because plaintiff’s Ed Opinion op the Court disability plaintiff not convinced whatever might have was related to actual events of plaintiff accurately perceived. ment that The evi- supported dence this determination. Actual plaintiffs in "events” did occur course em- ployment. meaning plaintiff But ascribed to events, these for which was the basis the concerns disability, that sarily led to her claimed was not neces- convincing showing There accurate. was no Epps plaintiffs was dissatisfied with work or Epps plaintiffs willingly would answer questions. convincing There was no evidence show- ing plaintiffs working relationship with plaintiff thought deteriorated as it did. supports
The record the determination that found that plaintiff misperceived The events. plaintiff wrong perception regarding in was contrary plain- because, the second evaluation meeting tiffs belief that un- was meeting fruitful, resulted least two changes in the evaluation. The wcab found that plaintiff misperceived the bulletin board incident because never had exclusive control over "completely the bulletin board had a un- Noting founded” "territorial attitude” about it. Epps’ testimony enjoyed exchanging jobs complained the fact never it, reaction, about wcab found that dependent perceptions, which was on her was Thus, unfounded. claim based on events, 17.237(301X2). might disappointed well have been about her ill second evaluation and at ease about way supposed the phone. she was to answer the tele- "events,” themselves,
But these are hardly feelings "injuries.” Plaintiffs these allegedly events were what disabled her. And *5 App 247 197 252 Mich Opinion op the Court feelings of her a function per- that is never An event events. tions of the compensable dis- for a the basis cannot be ceived ability. was bothered In this daily arising of routine of the events several misper- employment. found wcab relatively light innocuous the In of ceived events. readily events, could the of these nature misperceptions harbored infer allegedly her. disabled events that the ap erroneously argues that 301(2) requirement plied §of events” the "actual the causation than to itself rather to the event argument is based This case. element understanding amendment the on an 301(2) adopted intended in 1980 PA § holding principal v Difco of Deziel the invalidate (After Remand), 1; 268 Laboratories, Inc (1978) disability claim a mental NW2d could be —that subjective strictly proved by causal perception of a claim nexus, i.e., the honest (in precip injury personal the form of ant that a event) itating, disability. the claimant’s caused work-related Legislature argues perception only the honest to eliminate intended or proved by ap subjective that was nexus standard causal Legislature But, did while the Deziel. subjective causal nexus intend to invalidate Herrud, Deziel, Frederick & Sobh v standard of App 24, 27; Inc, Iloyan, supra; 472 NW2d Ed, 186 Bd of Greenwood v Pontiac 396; 465 NW2d subjective can be standard mean that a does not applied personal injury of a the determination (the outlined in Dez three elements second of the iel). 301(2) reading straightforward § shows perceptions cannot be of events unfounded of Ed Opinion op the Court claim, basis of a whether relate to causation 301(2) Section injury. is written in terms of This arising disabilities out of actual "events.” language on its face applies to the injury element that every prove. claimant must It require would an unreasonable reading of to find that it *6 does not apply to injuries events. This is not the interpretation momentous suggests, how- ever. The injury element of a workers’ compensa- tion claim has traditionally been a matter of actu- not of ality, subjective perceptions. Even Deziel applied a subjective test only the causation 301(2) element. In amending 401(2)(b), § Legislature was it making clear that unfounded perceptions have no role in workers’ compensation cases. argues also that an objective standard
is unworkable and is contrary the workers’ compensation doctrine that an employer takes an employee as the employee comes through the fac- tory gate. See Zaremba v Chrysler Corp, 226, 231; 745 Riddle v Broad Co, Crane Engineering Mich App 260; 218 (1974). NW2d 845 Plaintiff contends that a "rea- sonable man” standard is unworkable because it provides guidance. no
In this the wcab correctly applied § by denying finding benefits disability was based on unfounded perceptions of events. To the process this required applica- tion of an objective standard, it required by the statute. An objective standard repre- does not sent change respect to the determination a work-related injury. person reasonable test is often law, utilized the common and the concept is recognized in law. See Bower v Co, Whitehall Leather 172, 183; 197 by Jansen, J. Dissent the fa- noted which 312 NW2d "tempered with rea- must be doctrine vored-work sonableness.”
Affirmed. J.,
Corrigan, concurred. (dissenting.) numer- Plaintiff related Jansen, J. disabling depression as led to her ous events diagnosed by The events
two doctors.
brought
change
in the law
did occur. The
by the 1980
of MCL
418.401(2)(b);
amendment
17.237(301X2)
and,
MSA
17.237(401)(2)(b)
that a mental dis-
makes it clear
ability
arise out of "actual events
must
not unfounded
ment,
thereof.” The
undeniably
established
actual events were
say
in this
The statute does
case.
something
extraordinary or
the events must be
employee.
Such
that must disturb a reasonable
significant change
requirement
from
would be a
Chrysler Corp, 377 Mich
v
settled law. Zaremba
226, 231;