Buchau v. Simmons Boiler & Machine Co

Co Boiler Simmons BOILER & BUCHAUv SIMMONS MACHINE CO op the Court Compensation Statutes—Controlling 1. Workmen’s — Law —Per- Disability Injury. of manent —Arm—Date compensation rights parties in of workmen’s are cases nor- mally injury; the law in effect at determined the date of the however, Chrysler Corp, Clark v 377 Mich 140 mandates Compensation the 1956 amendments to Workmen’s controlling perma- alleges a Act shall be in case where disability nent total based on industrial loss of use arms and the date of for the loss of his left arm occurred 4, 1955, disability on March at which time for such provided were not for in the act. Compensation Injury 2. Workmen’s —Second Fund —Permanent Disability. requirements imposed liability Two basic must be met before is upon Injury by proviso the Second Fund a in a former section (1) Compensation of the Workmen’s Act: must meet disability the definition of and total term defined either of two other sections the Workmen’s Compensation employee Act and must show that on or 25, 1955, payments after June he is entitled to receive per workmen’s under the act in amounts week of provided less than was then act and total (MCLA disability 412.9[a]). Compensation 3. Workmen’s —Second Fund —Permanent Disability Injury. —Date of language Compensa- of a former section of the Workmen’s pertinent part "[a]ny tion Act permanently which read in person who, disabled as defined in 8a sections and 10 on 25, 1955, payments or after June is entitled to receive ^{[1] [6] [4]} [2, 3, 5, No reference. 58 Am Workmen’s 58 Am Workmen’s 7-11] Jur, Jur, 58 Am References Jur, Compensation for Points Compensation in Headnotes § 197. § 283. § 296. per this act in amounts under week workmen’s presently in the workmen’s less than is shall of benefits schedule amendatory weekly, this act receive date of after the effective fund, injury application, second an from the amount without receiving per equal what he is now between to the difference provided permanent per week now the amount week and appropriate application provi- of the and total with (e) (d), (b), (c), paragraphs and this section since the sions of clear; injury very injury” which that section date of currently injury for which the workman is is the refers to 25, 1955, compensation receiving after June al- workmen’s injury though was to June date the actual (MCLA412.9[a]). Injury. Compensation 4. Workmen’s —Date injury”, in two former as used sections of the The words "date of Act, Compensation refer to the same "date of Workmen’s injured injury”; is the one for which the date receiving compensation currently workmen’s bene- workman is 412.10). (MCLA412.9[a], fits Disability Compensation 5. Workmen’s —Second In- —Permanent jury. Court, Michigan Supreme injured for an Under a decision of the compensation workmen’s benefits for workman to be entitled to injury” disability, the "second must arise and total during employment the course of his out that decision is satisfied in a case where both mandate of injuries were work related. Compensation Disability 6. Workmen’s —Permanent —Retroactive Application. Corp, provide Chrysler Mich 140 is modified to Clark v Compensation the 1956 Workmen’s Act is effective retroac- that tively injured receiving to those cases in which an workman is or or entitled to receive workmen’s benefits on 25, 1955, receiving or after June and the for which he is January to receive is entitled 31, those benefits occurred between 1, 1956, August qualified 1947 and and he is otherwise and total workmen’s benefits. Concurring Opinion

M. S. Compensation Injury 7. Workmen’s —Second Fund —Arm. Plaintiff should be awarded workmen’s from the v Simmons Boiler Co injured Ipjury arm where his Second Fund in 1930 industrially useful until 1961 but it remained and in 1955 his permanently industrially rendered left arm was useless. Compensation Disability Leg—Arm—

8. Workmen’s —Permanent — Injuries Single — Accident. —Successive Any disability regarded as total under a section Act, Compensation provided "[tjotal permanent disability, compensation for which is * * * [pjermanent section means loss industrial legs arm; use of both or both hands both arms or 1 and 1 purpose permanency for the of this subsection to be days expiration than determined not less before the injury”, weeks from the date of must result from one injuries; applied and not that section successive should to a (MCLA disability resulting single from a work-related accident 412.10[b][7j). 9. Workmen’s provided industrial use of both section Disability and 1 ency 412.10[cj). of successive tion of500 "[tjotal Legislature, arm; be of in section means — determined not less than 30 the Workmen’s weeks for the Leg—Arm. permanent disability, compensation injuries, by speciñcally providing from 9, purpose indicated that such are not covered legs —Successive the date of or Compensation of this subsection * * ^[*] both [pjermanent hands injury” Injuries payment days or Act which (MCLA both arms or before the —Permanent for the results such for which is 412.10[b] total loss provided perman- expira- [7], leg a Compensation Disability 10. Workmen’s —Permanent —Arm—Foot —Leg—Eye—Hand—Successive Injuries. Legislature clearly intended a section of the Workmen’s Act, Compensation provided ijf employee which an has permanent injury at disability the time of in the form of the leg eye a loss of hand or arm or foot or at or the time of injury permanent disability incurs further in the form of leg the loss of a or eye, hand arm or foot or or he shall be totally permanently deemed to be disabled and be shall paid, provided section, compensation from the funds in this permanent disability subtracting total and after the amount of compensation employee received such losses” "[tjhe payment compensation and that under this section 392 Mich 141 begin payments shall at the conclusion of made for the permanent disability” encompass plain- a case second where injured employ- while in the course tiff has been twice of his in the ment where one resulted loss the use of his right in arm other resulted the loss of and the the use of his 412.8a). (MCLA left arm Compensation Disability 11. Workmen’s —Arm—Permanent —Sec- Injury ond Fund. Plaintiff, right injured who his arm 1930.and his left rendering permanently industrially it arm 1955 useless and 1961, lost the industrial usefulness of his arm in compensation perma- entitled to workmen’s for his total and disability provision Compensa- nent under a of the Workmen’s "[ijf employee tion Act that an has at the time of permanent disability in the form of the loss of a hand or arm provided sion minations of ity” accordance with definitions contained in ceived further disability or arm or foot or or foot or made and another permanently Fund permanent disability solely was entitled to receive in this after leg payments and, employee from the fund or subtracting section, under this section shall section under the facts of the disabled and shall be eye made for the second and at the time of such for both such losses compensation of that eye, the amount of (MCLA in the form of the loss of a hand he act which shall be deemed to be 412.8a, 412.9[aj). for total and paid, case, payment begin * * ^[*] were to be made in from the Second from the funds quoted section; at the conclu- [tjhe payment that deter- disabil- should incurs re- Appeal from Appeal (No. Board. April Submitted 1973. 6 April Term 54,042.) Docket 2, 1974. No. August Decided Claim against Herman Buchau Simmons Boiler & Machine Company, Employers Mutual Liability Company, and Second Fund for compensation. workmen’s granted. Award Court of Appeals denied Second Injury application Fund’s appeal. leave to Second Injury appealed Fund (Docket 52,379.) to the Supreme Court. No. Case Simmons Boiler Buchau v Co Opinion of the Court remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board. 384 Mich 784. Award denied. Plaintiff ap- peals. Reversed and remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for entry of an award. Charfoos, C, plaintiff.

Charfoos & P. (Vincent McAuliffe, E. Miley counsel), John F. Simmons Boiler & Machine Com- for defendants Liability Company. Mutual Employers pany General, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney Robert A. General, Derengoski, Solicitor and A. C. Stoddard Zielesch, and Eileen D. Assistants Attorney Gen- eral, for defendant Second Injury Fund. Kavanagh,

T. M. C. J. This case is on appeal by granted leave from a decision of the Workmen’s Board, Compensation Appeal after denial of leave appeal to the Court of Appeals. Leave was (1969). granted originally in 382 Mich 765 remanded, case was then 384 Mich 784 Appeal Board for light reconsideration Co, 726; Whitt v Ford Motor 383 Mich 178 NW2d Belencan v Candler Roofing 178 NW2d 922 The order of this Court on remand parties allowed the to appeal to this if directly aggrieved Court either was the decision of the Board on remand. Pursuant order, leave to appeal granted 22, 1972, plaintiff-appellant on June 387 Mich 795. The facts of this complicated. case are not In 1930, the plaintiff suffered an injury to his during arm the course of employment his at Ford Company. Motor Subsequently, on March Mr. Buchau suffered the industrial loss of his left during arm his employment with defendant Sim- 29, 1966, August mons. On compensa- a workmen’s 141 op Opinion the Court 15, 1961, that as of April held hearing tion referee the industrial plaintiff had also lost use of his arm, being causally this loss connected with his 1930 at Ford Motor Company. The 15, April referee held that as 1961 Mr. further disabled,” "permanently Buchau totally 10(b)(7), in as that term is used former MCLA 412.10; 17.160,1 of the Compensa- MSA Workmen’s 17.159(a) 412.9a; MSA tion Act. MCLA read in pertinent part as follows: "Any permanently person disabled who, 25, defined in 8a and 10 on or sections after June payments, is entitled to receive of workmen’s compensation less than per in under this act amounts week of presently provided in the workmen’s com- pensation permanent schedule of benefits for and total disability and for a lesser number of weeks than the permanent duration of after the disability such and total shall amendatory effective date of this act receive weekly, fund, application, equal without from the second an amount to the difference between what receiving per he is now now per week and the amount week provided for total with appropriate application provisions paragraphs (d) (e) (b), (c), injury. this section since the date of Payments after the entitled to of such from this second fund shall continue period any person for which is otherwise under this act for the duration disability according to the full rate in the schedule of benefits.” rights parties in workmen’s cases are injury. determined the law in effect as of the date of the Tarnow v Railway Express Agency, 558; 331 Mich 50 NW2d 318 Benefits "permanent disability” total for "industrial loss of use of both Although arms” first came into the act in 1956. in this act, Chrysler Corp, case were to that Clark v NW2d 714 Act shall be Compensation mandates the 1956 controlling Therefore, statutory in this case. references Compensation the Court to the Workmen’s Act will refer to that act as it repealed by existed 1956. These sections have since been 1969 PA 1969. Some referred to as the Workmen’s Act of statutory of these sections used this Court opinion changed drastically have been in the new act. Simmons Boiler Co Court 412.10; MSA 17.160 read in pertinent MCLA as follows: part disability, compensation "Total and hereof, provided in section 9 means:

which is "(7) Permanent and total loss of industrial use of both legs arm; or arms or 1 1 both hands (7) purpose permanency the be determined not less tion of 500 weeks from the date of of this subsection such to days than 30 expira- before the

injury.” below, ruling

In on this case the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal correctly Board interpreted 9a, supra, when it stated: "It requirements will be noted that two basic must be liability imposed upon met before Injury the Second 1) i.e., quoted proviso, Fund must the above the permanent meet the definition of and total disabil 2) ity as such term is defined in either Sec. 8a or 10b. employee must show that on or after June 1955, he payments is entitled to receive of Workmen’s per under the Act in amounts week of less than was then in the Act for disability. and total In the instant case weekly compensation entitled to result of provided employer from his as a the 1955 in amounts less than was then for total and disability. rights His to such flowed from the fact that he had suffered the loss of use of the left arm and continued to disabled. It can therefore be said hqs that he requirements met one of the qualify which would him for additional benefits from the Second Fund. However, plaintiff must also show that his condition meets the definition of as such 10b, term is defined in either Sec. 8a or Verb erg2 supra. We noted above that the facts of this case do not fall specific within the requirements 2 Compensation Appeal referring to Ver Board is berg Simplicity Pattern 357 Mich 99 NW2d 508 392 Mich op the Court impose liability upon to provisions of Sec. 8a the Second asserts that Injury Fund. Plaintiff facts do fall * * * 10b(7) provisions of Sec. .” within Compensation Appeal The Workmen’s Board this claimant on denied benefits to based the fol- lowing rationale: Chrysler Corp, "In the Clark v matter of (1966)], controlling holding NW2d [139n requirement 10b(7)

the Court to this referred found in and held as follows: " 'The second clause subsection added to section reads, purpose 1956 amendment "for the (of (7) permanency this subsection loss of indus- use) trial not 30 days be determined than before less expiration weeks of 500 from the date of injury.” language, applicable only That to subsection and not subsections, the other effectively to cation six appli- limits its injuries only future those days which before the occurred within less than 500 weeks act, date effective thus precluding resurrection of ancient claims.’ days "30 less than 500 weeks before the effective date 195, 31, of Act PA was January 1947. The facts presented in the instant case do not fall within the 10b(7) interpretation placed upon above Supreme by Sec. the plaintiff Court. The by suffered at Ford many years prior Motor Co 31, occurred to January 1947, had not suffered the industrial loss prior of use of his arm to the effective date of Act 1956, prior 4, of #195 nor to the March 1955 injury of which was the cause the first loss which occurred.” Clark, supra, In the issue presented to this 10(b)(7) Court was whether or not was to have § effect any injuries on prior August 1, sustained to 1956, which prior to that not date did fall within the strict statutory definition of disability. total Mr. Buchau’s 1955 injury is one of many which, such claims at actual time of Boiler Co v Simmons Opinion op the Court the strict statutory not fall within

injury, does In disability. of definition who fell within the deciding parties that 10(b)(7) 1, of August as statutory definition § thereafter, 1956, or because of industrial any time 1, 1956, August to enti- suffered were date, benefits as of that permanent-total tled date, they on which met any subsequent re- section, of that this Court was then quirements the amount of asked to determine retroactivity section, we did. In so doing, that which it was for this Court to decide unnecessary what effect 10(b)(7) language was to have on claims § related upon injuries based work which occurred August 1956 as that issue after was not then before us. As all industrial suffered by the place prior claimant in this case took Compensation Act, amendment to the Workmen’s Court, issue is still not before this and this opinion apply should not be so construed as to post-1956 injuries. industrial disputed perma-

It is not that Mr. Buchau is as that nently disabled term is defined 10(b)(7). He has lost the industrial use of disputed arms. It is also not that as of June 1955, Mr. Buchau currently receiving total Simmons, employer, benefits from his injury, a result of his 1955 or that his employer Simmons did not him the maximum pay statutory weeks benefits. Compensation Ap-

As noted the Workmen’s Board, peal parties agreement are that Mr. Buchau satisfies one-half of the set forth tests However, appellee would have us read the §9a. 10(b)(7) as follows: part the latter of § purpose permanency "for the of this subsection industrial than 30 be determined not less [of use] 392 Court of 500 weeks days expiration from the date before injury” the Workmen’s requiring, as as did one, Board, not but both Appeal that in cases of this fall within confines of our type holding. Clark determine,

This Court must now within the decision, confines of our Clark to what date or phrase "date of injury”, dates as 10(b)(7), refers. contained § 9a, language quoted supra, is very clear. § There is no doubt that which 9a refers § is the for which the workman is cur- rently receiving workmen’s after 25, 1955, although June the actual injury date was 25,1955. June Section states: "Total disability, hereof, which is in section 9 means:” 10(b)(7) Section then continues and uses the same words used "date of injury”. For § this Court to hold that 9 and 10 deal with § different "dates of injury” would strain the statu- tory It quite construction. evident from the language of the statutes that they refer to the same "date of This injury”. injury date is the one for which the injured workman is receiv- currently ing workmen’s compensation benefits.

In Whitt v Ford Motor supra, held Court for an injured workman to be entitled to workmen’s

and total disability, the "second injury” must arise out of during the course of his employment. parties in disagreement are in this case as to which is the true "second would like injury”. They the answer to this question to not be determined Buchau v Simmons Boiler Co Coleman, Opinion by M. S. J. injury, upon the actual date of but the date

which the from that first made case, however, itself known. In this the answer to question is irrelevant. Both in this were case work related. The mandate of Whitt, supra, is satisfied. holding hereby provide

Our Clark modified to accident, the date of for which an receiving workman is or is entitled to receive workmen’s after June 1955, must have occurred either on or after Janu- ary 31, 1947. Mr. Buchau’s falls within span qualified this time permanent and he is otherwise

and total workmen’s paid by benefits. These benefits are to be Injury Second Fund. Compensation Appeal

The Workmen’s Board is reversed, and the case is remanded to that Board for'entry of an award not inconsistent with this opinion. JJ., Williams,

Swainson concurred with T. M. C. J. Kavanagh, (concurring).

M. Coleman, S. J. I would reverse Compensation Ap- the decision of the peal plaintiff compensation Board and award from (I Injury the Second this decision on not, Fund. however, do base provisions upon by relied majority.) Although agreement there is with the opinion result of the Justice, the Chief there is disagreement reasoning. as to

FACTS adequately opinion The facts are detailed in the Kavanagh. spe- Chief Justice T. M. However, I 392 Opinion M. S. portion Appeal cifically note this Board’s opinion citing certain Second Fund and "concessions of the holdings the Referee which were left

factual tested that uncon- only finding on now can be one review there plaintiffs right arm is that is loss traceable out in the an arose of and course to employment which of his Ford Motor Co. in 1930. with Ford Motor provisions subject was Co. in effect in which 1930.” Statute were accept finding for purposes I such a this opinion only. 17.160(b) 412.10(b);

MCLA MSA Plaintiff under provi- seeks 17.159(a). 412.9(a); sions MCLA MSA applica- As provided ble that section that determinations disability were made accordance with definitions contained in MCLA 17.158(1) 412.8a; MSA 412.10(b); and MCLA MSA 17.160(b). provision

The latter part: reads in "Total disability, for which in section means: "(7) Permanent total loss of industrial use of both legs or arm; hands both arms or 1 for purpose of this subsection permanency be determined not less than 30 days expira- before the tion of 500 from the injury.” weeks date of present

Plaintiffs condition results from the effects of two separate injuries. right His arm was injured in it 1930 but remained industrially useful until 1961. plaintiffs In 1955 arm left and rendered permanently industrially useless. Boiler Co Simmons Opinion M. S. law, plaintiffs applicable

Under extended 500 weeks. At the 1955 filed an application he period end of that claiming he was permanently further plaintiffs The referee found that totally disabled. industrially April 15, arm useless on became attributed solely 1961. Such result was to the 1930 injury. colleague opinion my assumes that a depends upon matter the interpre-

decision in this 412.10(b)(7). I tation of MCLA do not believe that applicable. section is

It is my any disability regarded contention 10(b)(7) as total and under must re- § sult from one and not injuries. successive part upon Section which relies in the definition 10(b)(7) speaks of the worker’s "injury” 10(b)(7) "the date of Section injury”. speaks of "the date of injury”. 10(b)(7)

A review of cases demonstrates that § should applied to a disability resulting from a single work-related accident. See our recent deci- Co, sions in DeGeer v DeGeer Equipment Farm (1974) (effects 96; 391 Mich 214 NW2d 794 of back injury possibly resulting industrial loss of the use legs) of and Burke v Ontonagon Road Commis- sion, (1974) (effects 103; 391 Mich 214 NW2d 797 to injury resulting one in permanent loss of industrial use of legs). both Also see Loua- gie Chapman Scott, v Merritt 274; & 382 Mich 170 (1969). NW2d 13

In Clark v Chrysler Corp, 140; 377 Mich 139 (1966), 714 plaintiff NW2d suffered an industrial resulting accident in the amputation of his left thumb, hand and the index and fingers middle right his hand. He received compensation for the specific loss of each hand. This Court that said 141 392 Mich 154 Opinion M. S.

subsequent specific losses, for the payments to the being perma- entitled plaintiff was nently disabled. Also see totally Goss v Top Co, 34 O'Michigan Rural Electric Mich App 454; (1971). 191 491 NW2d v plaintiff Muskegon

The in Paulson Heights (1963) Co, 312; 123 Tile 371 Mich NW2d 715 was injured in automobile accident an which occurred employment. in the course of his An ultimate experienced result was that the worker substantial pain up internal whenever he stood or walked. rejected employer’s The Court argument that 10(b)(7) required a direct injury legs plaintiff’s said "disability fairly would seem within scope statute”. Also see Lockwood v Corp Fund, Continental Motors Second (1970). 597; Mich App 27 183 807 NW2d in Springer Court v Foundry Reed & Ma Co, 11; chine 346 Mich NW2d noted question that no plaintiff raised "but that permanently totally disabled due an sustained on December 1943”. re inhaling gas. sulted from result, coke As a he became insane. Also see Edwards v Michigan Light (1956). Corp, 169; 346 Mich Alloys 77 NW2d 567 In Rench Kalamazoo Co, Stove & Furnace 314; NW the plaintiff sus- tained an operating punch while a press. thumbs, He lost fingers two his hand fingers and three of his left. After a review discussing cases use, loss of industrial the Court agreed was permanently Rupp disabled. Also see v Hutter Construction 284 NW 662 in Dubey v Brunswick Lumber 262 NW 284 was struck in the left eye, lost his vision and compensated. Boiler Co Simmons J.' S.M. sight eye. of his lost subsequently

He injury to the previous from loss resulted This found This an order which affirmed Court eye. left Com- totally disabled. permanently the worker in Hilton v dissent my cases discussed pare Corp, Motors of General Division Oldsmobile 43; 210 NW2d 10(b)(7) is concerned indicate § These cases which results total and with incident. single a work-related from interpretation for support textual Further 412.10(c); MSA 10(b)(7) in MCLA found is of § 17.160(c) which reads: subject are all in this clause specified "The amounts minimum maximum and as to limitations

to the same of 1 member while of the loss In case above stated. of another being paid for the loss compensation is of the paid for the loss member, be compensation shall provided, pay- period herein member second payments for begin at the conclusion ments the first member.” 10(a) paid specifies amounts

Only § 10(c) provides limitations. Section prescribes is lost one member compensation when payment loss of for a being paid while provid- by specifically Legislature, a member. injuries, of successive for the ing payment results 10(b)(7). not covered that such are indicated 17.158(1) 412.8a; MSA MCLA rendered worker not mean that a This does successive disabled permanently 412.8a; MSA In MCLA remedy. is without 17.158(1) provided: Legislature the time of employee

"If has at an 392 Coleman, Opinion by S. J. M. of loss of a disability in the form the hand or arm or of leg eye at the time such injury foot or or and incurs permanent in disability the form of further the loss of a eye, or arm he shall hand or foot or be deemed to totally permanently paid, disabled and shall be be from the funds section, this permanent subtracting total and after for amount the n employee of received the payment both such losses. The of under begin this section at the shall conclusion of the pay- permanent disability. ments made for the second payment Such upon the depart- shall be made order the ment.” 10(c) language

This dovetails with the § payment for the total disability do begin not until "the conclusion of the payments made for the second disability.” The Appeal Board did not believe that the re- quirements of 8a were satisfied. Such a decision §

does not under the particular facts case coincide with spirit either the or intent of the law.

Mr. Buchau has been twice while in the course of employment. his One injury resulted in the loss of the right use his arm. The other resulted in the loss the use of his left arm. The sum of these results equals total and disability under I8a. believe that Legislature the § clearly intended that section to encompass cases plaintiff’s. such as It logically inconsistent deny him benefits because the arthritic condition resulting from the prior broken bone did com- not pletely disable the arm until 1961 and after the second injury. language broad used in 8a and subse-

quently the even broader language used in the 1969 Workmen’s Compensation Act specifi- cally in provisions Second Fund now appearing 17.237(521) 418.521; as MCLA MSA Simmons Boiler Co Opinion M.S. provision interpret light me to lead plaintiff. most favorable to intent towas for successive compensate workmen which permanently them leave disabled. To does not qualify hold that because the not permanently disabling first until promote inflexibility after the second would legislative intent. deny 2.20 on

In of his treatise Workmen’s Compen- Law, says Larson sation social philosophy behind such laws providing, efficient, "is desirability in the most dignified, form, most and most certain financial and enlightened medical which an community obliged provide feel any

would to case some less form, satisfactory allocating the burden of these payments appropriate to the most source.” Awkerman, See 235; Whetro v 174 783 NW2d Doehler-Jarvis, Wilson v Divi- sion of National Lead 358 510; Mich 100 NW2d Ballou, 226 Crilly Mich NW2d 493

I believe Mr. Buchau is entitled to for his total disability under provisions of 8a and 9a. I would remand to §§ Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for entry of the appropriate award. (3):

The 1969 act also provides in subsection person "Any who July has been receiving or is entitled to receive benefits from the pursuant second fund any prior provisions the workmen’s law shall continue receive be entitled to receive such benefits from such * * * fund .” Plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation S. M. Fund. Under the facts of from the Second solely be made from case, should payments fund. remand to Workmen’s Com- I would reverse of an not entry award Board pensation Appeal opinion. with this inconsistent Levin, Fitzgerald, Kavanagh, and J. W. G.T. case. JJ., not sit in this did

Case Details

Case Name: Buchau v. Simmons Boiler & Machine Co

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 2, 1974

Citation: 220 N.W.2d 408

Docket Number: 6 April Term 1973, Docket No. 54,042

Court Abbreviation: Mich.