Coombe v. Penegor

Michigan Sheppard National Bank. single unexpected event, includes both the cause unexpected and the result.” n appellee.

Affirmed. Costs took no J., in the decision of this Voelker, case. COOMBE PENEGOR. Compensation Logger—Total Disability

Workmen’s — —Subarach- Hemorrhage noid —Proximate Cause —Evidence. Logger, years age, apparently previous good health, who tightened load, held, binder chain around to have established right workmen’s disability for total due to paralysis resulting hemorrhage, from subarachnoid where it appears during arose out of and the course of his employment (CL 1948, 412.1, 417.1). §§ Sharpe JJ., dissenting. Carr,

Appeal Compensation Appeal from Workmen’s . (Docket Board. Submitted October 11, 1956. No. 46,733.) 23, Calendar No. Decided June 10, 1957. presented Ewart J. Coombe, Jr., his claim for compensation against Clyde Penegor E. and State disability Accident resulting for total Fund plaintiff. excessive strain. Award to Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

I ^[1] 58 Am Workmen’s Jur, References Compensation Points 255 et Headnotes seq. Donnelly (Richard O’Brien, of coun- J. & O’Brien plaintiff. sel), for Dodge, Briggs counsel), (Stanley

Harry for F. defendants. right where another case J. This is Black, by employee

compensation and denied is claimed strength employer of facts weakness on injury employee internal showing sustained that the job. 7 under Plaintiff claims on the while the workmen’s § (CL ei 1948, 417.1 act seqJ]). pro seq. [Stat et 17.220 the We was Ann 1950Rev jus appeal board determine whether ceed to awarding compensation thereunder.* him tified supporting appeal evidence, found, on board follows: plaintiff, February while 17, 1953, “On or about logging employed for defendant a truck driver company, ensuing dis- total an and suffered Appli- compensation. ability for which he claims May hearing 1953. Hear- 15, cation ing 1953, was filed for on July 31, 22, was held on and on December 1953, denying hearing entered award referee an compensation. years at the time of old 26 “Plaintiff was about supporting wife, living injury. his He with and was May Peter children, James, born Charlotte, and Herald, Douglas 2, born December 1949, and weekly wage average was $56.23. 1952. Plaintiff’s employ Penegor had “Plaintiff been years up injury. He worked to the date of about usually consisting 5 men. Two crew small normally At extra used. times trucks trucks were helped men each other in the were added. The work up logs hauling making preparatory to loads of precludes neither No intimation before us nor award under is made that claim for necessary 2 or vice decision. versa. That question V. PENEGOR. COOMBE prior Fellow woods. workers testified from to good, February had been steady, he never com- worker and that had reliable plained any physical dizziness or dis- headaches, ability. regular necessary part of the work of “A plaintiff logs securely bind the associates was to commencing than 1 the trucks before to haul. Each place. perform- load ing bound in more operation long safety chain was attached right a hook to the side of on the left side. A truck and a bunk logs thrown the load of over shorter chain was The 2 chains were left affixed the side of bunk. brought together tightened by means of a load binder, which a sort of lever to pieces each end of which short of chain with hooks are attached. undisputed testimony “The boss, crew Don- Kangas,

ald crew members, Neilo Maki and Fabian and of fastening to the effect that G-odell, the tightening great of the load binder took a deal physical Kangas effort. testified that the work energy. took a lot of work and Godell that testified very every it took much effort time and that he had difficultyvery many operation performing times this help. and had to very have Maki testified it ‘takes pounds pull much of exertion to it down and bind the chain around the load.’ some On occasions the require was pipe ]ob so difficult as to the a use of Kangas, an extension lever. Maki and Godell all personal experience fastening had load binders. # * # morning February plaintiff, the 17, 1953, “On up pulled logs get on little a load of himself the top caught safety of the hook binder the on chain. pulled He himself feet back the had his on trailer wheel and up. affixing top part the When of the binder safety plaintiff chain, to the was feet off 2-1/2 ground. plaintiff the Maki saw hook the binder. away. then Maki to walk Godell started was stand- ing nearby making logs. record Neither saw later plaintiff the truck. Seconds from descend to 6 plaintiff steps both Maki and G-odell was seen Plain- the binder. hé had from where affixed exclaimed, ‘What’s his head, tiff had his on hands to the and fell unconscious that, that’, what’s twisted help ground- then back. Maki went his place. that was and found checked the binder vicinity appears pipe that and it No none was used tiff had no assistance in the seen plain- by plaintiff that lever and anyone on this occa- from else sion.” hospital. immediately It to a taken

Plaintiff was yet remains became and that left side shown impair- suffering paralyzed and that he is still physician memory. first Dr. ment of Aldrich, plaintiff charge March until case, treated suffering head- from severe 1953. He-found im- almost followed neck, and a aches, nausea stiff paralysis mediately progressive the left arm leg. diagnosis subarachnoid of cause was His hemorrhage, explained as follows: coverings brain “There are covering covering includes is the arachnoid say when we brain. And vessels blood- hemorrhage 1 of the blood we mean subarachnoid ruptured covering and allowed has vessels blood space produces arachnoid enter the symptoms had.” that this man ex- Dr. Aldrich testified strenuous pressure could and that such blood ertion elevates rupture covering dis- of brain have caused abling to the cross- here. answer results shown always pressure question, “Is blood examiner’s yourself you he this: said when exert raised position. , your depends instance, exact For “It possi- explanation, liver is a reservoir for in or your you body, bly and if third of the blood a your way change position a in such should'bend n Coombe Penbgor., you possibly the liver will constrict force an- quárt peripheral other blood into circulation change brain is and the most affected blood produce change of and that will volume marked pressure.” blood appeal finding board, The under said part said: daily fastening regular “Plaintiff’s work in and required very great

load binders that he exert February effort, sometimes, unusual as on disadvantageous position. in an awkward and engaged Plaintiff had been in this work for about years. presented Plaintiff’s work a substantial haz- injury ard of which was far in attend- excess of that ing employment general. The work described totally hemorrhage caused the subarachnoid plaintiff. disability disabled result- ed from causes and characteristic of conditions peculiar employer to the business and arose employment.” out of in the course of opinions First: In aimed toward conn defeat of pensation act, under 7 as well expression favorite given our is that the claimant doing at required most degree work “which exertion not shown to been have unusual greater to or ordinarily experienced than that general (McGregor field of common labor” Department, Conservation Mich 93, 101; Nich ols Company, Central Crate & Box 340 Mich Simpson 125). v. Matthes, 343 Defendants ask apply that we such rule. opinions upholding compensation aimed toward 7, we have announced and followed interpretation say,

broader statute, legislative purpose providing to be is said one compensation (if present) other be essentials where employment the which conditions “result a hazard distinguishes gen- it in character from the 348 640 Goodyear (Samels occupations” Tire v. of run

eral 156; Na Underwood v. Mich 317 Rubber & tional Campbell, Wyant Castings Division, & Motor Company, 276; Foundry Gibbs 329Mich Cannon Kepsel Corp., Mc 333 Motor Wheel 335). Cready Plaintiff asks Sons, Mich & apply this latter test. we warring- say, which of these do,we is to until "Who applicability of groups part determine of decisions shall department as manifest from is below, ? The brought opinions certiorari, here on successive stands on Kepsel utterly puts Underwood bewildered. long? top No one- but how moment, for the McGregor snubbed Underwood known, since has McGregor’s in a we will choose rule 1953, whether day go given will to> the favor of or whether case ig- applied is is the other one When Underwood. heralding legislation prompt leave and so we nored, compensation cases determination of administrative in No uncertainty.. expensive litigious of state telegraph brings the moccasin wonder tidings guarded com- tower occasional claustral ment judicial dyspepsia majority that the state controlling- apt opinion day not to be is more than up. called 7 ease when of case-choice propose being I timid it is, what situation bald McGregor’s fact-premise quoted inquiry into the my patent un- That test view stands test. judicial caprice. out in It should be cast workable favor of the gave us when the-

better Underwood one support a rea- at unanimous least Court opinion. soned McGregor-proclaimed “de indeed,

What, ordinarily expe gree exertion” mankind general Is field of common labor? riences in so, judicially If noticed in these cases? experience? authority not, If how or known what go a claimant of must Penegor. Coombe proving degree according such exertion, about may supply evidence, rules his record comparison lacking? said, cases, above to be foot-pound prove up energy he the Should units of apply freight handling piano one must moving, to boxcar or paper-pickers

or such are known to public parks? Where, indeed, this Court obtain did the facts on which it has declared and created such degree-standard They repeat exertive ? the word —I printed “facts”—cannot found be in the records of McGregor, Simpson. vagaries Nichols, or And the judges, sedentary of long veteran whose lives have physical since become dissociated from and labor exertion-degrees give per thereof, us no Or, aid. haps, they? say do Will someone rise here —of personal experience or otherwise—that the head-to- clinging by toe muscular effort of one the hand to huge logs,* †meanwhileapply of a side truckload of ing remaining straining with outstretched hand the power-effort requisite lever-tightening to safe of statutory log-binding apt chains,† not throb produce temples distinguishable and thus risk of very circulatory rupture Coombe suffered? I perforce, accept think not. We must, what men bet equipped placed ter corporal to know have in this record By token,

oath. the same we should have assumption omnicompetent with further done of knowledge degree degrees physical exer applies tion common labor to its varied tasks. just

The views stated lead to consideration of de- They say fendants’ sole contention in this case. we by McGreg- a hold, should as matter of law force logs. log-binding chains to the (CLS 1954, † It This body is in “having particular statute. or § order, here, 257.720 frame of the vehicle breaking strength load consisted of between 30 and 40 hardwood It [Stat specifies to refer Ann 1952 that to the of not logs means Rev rigid shall be less than 9.2420]). toggle requirements securely 8,000 wrapping fastened pounds” n regularly failed show work

or, that Coombe degree require him performed did ordinarily experienced in excess exertion general must labor. I think we of common field proof he agree such because that Coombe failed of degree-criterion of exertive did establish such time, at same labor. But we should, common hope an evi- bear such that no one could confess dence-burden ing versity testimony assembly cover- absent general di- labor, common the field of (if experts providing with thereof, of tasks fancifully degree-standard all) average Mc- at Gregor McGregor’s reject de- test as then, I exacts. unworthy proof, worthless It is cisive'here. proved. if McGregor it statute

Second: I turn says disabling personal sus It self. compensable present if tained as in circumstances which' are to and conditions such be “due causes peculiar the of to the business of and characteristic employer” (CL [Stat §417.1 1950 Rev Ann department ,§17.220]), below as directs the and upon, presence absence of called when certain, peculiar of characteristic and conditions causes arid being declared means, This work done. to the decisions, enlightened claimant un that a our more der part obligated more than to establish no 7 is employment ain hazard “result of the conditions general distinguishes from the it in character occupations” (Underwood Motor v. National run of Wyant Campbell, Castings & Cannon Division, supra; Corp., Foundry Motor Wheel Gibbs supra). supra; Kepsel McCready Sons, . & applicability of 7 is sim- of Undenvood’s test comparatively In- ple more understandable. degree- impossible-of-proof exertive of an stead standard, proof only requires be made that some something distinguishing special and of hazards — Pbnegor. Coombe way duty-risk ordinary in accord- out an award ing men—before of reasonable to fair view There is an abundance 7. be ordered can of such writ purpose proof of this here, and so ends of certiorari. fairly- presents certain case said, all is

When Coombe en- decisive moment. facts of established joyed expe- young vigor man, the health employer work his the manual rienced and used to doing right engaged work, him to do. He charge, according until arriv- foreman well very He then became al of the moment distress. Immediately prior seriously disabled. and remained performing disability, he to such distress for his out-of-the-ordinary special employer a reasonably ac- nature of which task, distinctive finally diagnosed rupture and dis- counts abling hemorrhage. assembly my and in be, of facts should

Such I award. therefore is, sufficient sustain this view strength Underwood’s construc- to affirm on vote tion and application 7. I also inter vote McGregor, Nichols, and the herein criticized rule of 'Simpson. recover costs. Plaintiff should 1957). (June Addendum duly preced- assigned writer,

This case was to the year. ing during last our October term submission assignment foregoing pursuance opin- of such prepared and ion was distributed for consideration my 29,1956. Brothers October As disclosed by quotation, appeal upheld therein board solely compensation for on author- .Coombe’s claim part ity compensation 7 of act. On review exclusively urged affirmance here, Coombe under argu- part during so informed the court oral ment. So far as the writer is concerned Coombe and Michigan Reports. appeal right regard board were hence, such — foregoing opinion.

tenor of the Justices Dethmers, Carr, Edwards, Smith Kelly written and, have now in the case in belated Sheppard Michigan interim, our decision in Na- Bank, tional 348 Mich 577, been has handed down. Sheppard disabling injury holds that a sustained compensable part in this case of Coombe is under Accordingly, of the act. that which hitherto was part amply support- sustainable under is now by part ed 2 and there is no occasion for resort to part war over relevant circumstances I vote to affirm construction 7. In these award under Coombe’s join compendi- 2 Mr. Justice Smith summary ous of Coombe’scase. (concurring). J.C. I concur affirm- Dethmers, plaintiff. ance of the award to To avoid further confusion, it should be observed plaintiff’s “required that whether a work was such as degree exertion not shown to have been greater ordinarily experi unusual to or than that general enced in the field of common labor” is the employed by been test has this Court, inas McGregor Department, v. Conservation 338 Mich 340 Mich 93; Nichols Central & Box Crate Simpson only 232; and 343 Mich Matthes, purpose determining whether an accidental or fortuitous causal event had occurred such as to war long rant as under 2 of the act.* So this Court adheres view that “accident” is prerequisite ap still plication of that test to determine the occurrence of an accident is in nowise inconsistent with the use of the different test, borrowed from Connecticut amended. CL § 412.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1950 Rev 17.151 et seq.), 645 V. PeNEGOR. COOMBE (Glodenis 40 American 118 Brass Conn plaintiff’s 146]), [170 “whether the conditions of A dis employment in a hazard which must result general tinguishes run in character from the distinctly purpose of occupations” determining, different for the Goodyear & Rub Tire as in Samels Company, National 149; 317 Mich Underwood v. ber Wyant Castings Campbell, & Can Division, Motor Foundry Company, M. 273; Mich Fields v. G. non 329 Company, Foundry & 332 Mich Brass Aluminum Corporation, Mich 333 Motor Wheel 113; Gibbs v. Kepsel McCready Sons, & 345 and disability the lan which whether the guage is one is, and conditions to statute, “due causes peculiar to the'busi which are characteristic of employer which arises out of and ness employment” the pensable com and, hence, course of occupational provisions diseases under the designed part Part 2 reach of the act.* Application part one situation the 7 another. appropriate determining compensabil test ity following part not amount to nar under does appli interpretation rower statute than does equally appropriate but different test cation of the for compensability determining 7. There under respect apply the eases is no conflict ing between compensability to determine un the former test applying the latter test de der and those compensability 7. It is termine stat judicial has a different not which fixed basis fiat, ute, for compensability under the one than under the other. finding, supported compe- appeal board’s suffered subarach- evidence,

tent “may hemorrhage have been noid this caused consisting having, single on the incident” amended. CL 417.1 et seq. (Stat Ajm Bey § 17.220 et seq.), Michigan. Reports.

'646 date of “fastened a load injury, requiring binder effort very prior strenuous great falling an unconscious state.” There is no medi- competent testimony cal or other find- evidence support and the board that the ing, appeal find, did hem- orrhage actually was the result the cumulative effects of strenuous frequent, exertions on the job in such fastening load binders occasions. previous that on the (Incidentally, testimony is occasion in he question the first load engaged fastening Rather, it day.) ap- position peal board that it immaterial whether is the injury resulted from a incident or from a single regular course strenuous and unusual the board exertion, n holding in the- first situation would be entitled to under 2 lat- compensation ter under part 7. Under the medical testimony the record, this is clearly single-incident case, which the injury may be localized- to time as place. As said in v. River Raisin Dailey Paper 269 Mich 443, 446, 447: (cid:127) “An whch may hardly be so localized seems

"to fit the definition of an as occupational disease stated by the Court in Adams v. Acme White Lead & 157, Color 182 Works. Mich 160 (LRA1916A, 283, 1916D, Ann Cas 6 689, NCCA 482), a‘A disease arising causes incident to the patient’s as lead occupation, poisoning paint among * ers. “It is a matter of weeks or months or * * * years.” It drop is it is drop, little by .little, day after day for weeks and final- months, and ” ly enough is accumulated to produce symptoms.’ Beaty Foundation Co., 245 Mich 256, 259, this Court said:

“But when caused by is a fixed and single fortui- tous preventable circumstance it an occu- pational. disease but accident within the meaning of the workmen’s law.” 647 PENEGOR. V. CoOMBE making (In disa distinctions between the above compensable 2 of act and those under bilities occupational the term “acci disease, use of due to pertinent respect be former, both dent” with adoption act in fore and after significance the 1943 particular since without prerequisite eliminating “accident” amendment* to part 2.) Acme Adams v. See (160 Mich Lead Works, & Color White 482), 1916D, 6 NCCA LRA1916A, 283,Ann Cas occupation concerning in which also said this Court al disease: any “In of one contact case it is not the result single event.” Missouri see, effect, Williams

And to the same Bridge Valley 150; Co., Mich & Iron Cazan City Manfg. Yale & Towne Cell v. Detroit, 86; Rust Parker Co., 281 Mich Thomas v. Hosiery Pansy Co., 284 Mich Lucier v. Proof Accordingly, to it seems 286 Mich 585. as Inc., discussion no here for there is applicable occasion me, question controlling the test to or cases part compensability 7 of the act. This under a 2 case. per- disability resulting from a a

Plaintiff suffered arising of his in the course out of and sonal my opin- employment. set forth the reasons For Michigan Bank, Sheppard National ion in compensation part under to 577,he is entitled n ofthe act. I would affirm with award, the costs plaintiff. (dissenting). facts in case, The in-this Carr, J. testimony before the .taken as established

sofar compensation deputy commis of the workmen’s .a materially dispute. approxi For are not sion, PA 1943, No 245. mately prior years February plaintiff 17, 1953, employed by Penegor logging defendant was truck driver. On as engaged

the mentioned, date while in such work, he suffered subarachnoid hemor rhage partially par a result of which he became alyzed. Application compensation for made compensation with the act,* accordance and workmen’s proofs support plaintiff’s claim were sub mitted. testimony, dep-

From his consideration the the uty plaintiff concluded that had established his right the an or- under statute and denying sought ap- der the award was entered. peal ground board reversed the on the order plaintiff’s disability resulted “from causes con- peculiar ditions characteristic of and the busi- employer.” accordingly ness the An award was made under act on ground disability that the was suffered such bring fairly scope circumstances of toas within § 7, 1, of the act amended PA (CL § [Stat No 245 417.1 Ann 1950 Rev 17.- 220]). From such award on defendants, leave- granted, appealed. consequence have case now before us for of certiorari, review writ being testimony dep- issue uty whether before the support finding was sufficientto board.. immediately prior The record discloses to the hemorrhage time that other suffered he and employees Penegor prepar- of defendant were ing logs hauling. load on a trailer In con- customary nection with such work it was to bind the load chains, with one hear the front and the other at the rear of such load. The driver who was to take- plaintiff pro- out the load affixedthe front chain, proc- to ceeded secure the load the toward rear. The et seq., PA 1912 as amended (1st Ex [Stat Sess), Ann 1950 Bev No as amended 17.141 ,et seq., (CL amended] §411.1 V. PeNEGOR. CoOMBE attaching right chain the a to side the involved ess throwing the load the loose end over trailer, the opposite side, from the be reached it could so that point it chain where pulling the down then binding the left might mechanism on attached be position hooldng chain This involved side. tightening handle, lever, of a it means or and then sufficiently tight the was If the.chain binder. automatically as the handle was locked mechanism testimony position. pressed indicates down into required operation was that one that exertion skill. testimony of the from the follows

The inference operation binding more diffi- was that the witnesses unusually If than others. cult in instances some purpose pipe employed of facil- for the difficult was operation, itating assistance was rendered employee. at In the ease bar does a fellow any experienced difficulty plaintiff appear that securing He load in the manner indicated. was years age, experienced in was the time at physically strong. did not undertake work, and He help pipe procure he use, did seek nor help any employee. That such available other difficulty if in the it, to him he needed because clearly appears operation, from the record. One of employees, that he Maki, Neilo testified fellow engaged plaintiff while the latter was watched fastening he that binder, the load observed plaintiff hooked, no had the chain concluded that away. help required, started to walk After- plaintiff inspection, he wards, on discovered operation. completed had Testimony indicating was offered that in order to chain that had been thrown over reach the end of the stepped up on the wheel the load ground. feet above the The record trailer, or 2-1/2 n does stepped after whether down reach not show he ing standing the chain or remained on the wheel hooking manipulating while' chain and the han Apparently away dle of the he binder. walked from the trailer no actions. one observed his How gone he a ever, after had few feet he made an ex that clamation attracted the attention of fellow his1 ground. workmen, and then fell taken to the He was hospital Ontonagon to a at for medical attention. physician A who examined him, who testified in hearing, diagnosed his on the behalf trouble as his hemorrhage, concluding a subarachnoid that also plaintiff at had the time an occurrence aneu rysm, described as a weak and distended blood ves sel. The witness further testified that such con may may congenital dition be or be result of express any opin disease. He did not undertake to length ion as to the of time that such condition had any proof existed, nor is there as to the nature of progressive might the disease, otherwise, or that aneurysm spe cause brain. The witness cifically opinion plaintiff stated as that his suffered disability aneurysm ruptured because the hemorrhage. caused plaintiff prior-

Counsel for have called attention to compensa- of decisions Court in which awards of tion ground 7 were sustained on the proofs were offered to show that the disabilities sought actually resulted pe- causes conditions characteristic of and employer. culiar to the business of the Such was Detroit situation v.Mills Tuberculosis Sani- proofs tarium, 323 Mich 200. There the on behalf indicated that he contracted tuberculosis washing regularly as the result of dishes in defend- sanitarium, ant pa- which dishes had been used tients afflicted with the ailment. In Underwood v. Castings Wyant Campbell, National Motor Division, Foundry Company, plain- & Cannon 329 Mich 273, V. PENEGOR. CoOMBE required in tbe her and twist to bend tiff’s work foundry, resulting heavy handling in a cores indicating with evidence strain some lumbosacral ap proofs offered, disc. Under herniated developed, peared plaintiff’s as in condition required to Case, was the work that she Mills Comparable performance. its manner do and & Alumi Fields G. Brass existed in v. M. situations Company, Foundry Mich and Gibbs num Motor 332 Corporation, Mich 617. 333 Wheel claim that the at there no In the case bar hemorrhage aneurysm the was that resulted in employment. Inso- characteristics the caused far the statute is right compensation under 7 of as the wholly on the concerned, claim rests ruptured theory the that weakened blood vessel the plaintiff’s part physical in because of exertion securing indicated. The testi- the load in the manner mony mentioned, witness, medical above in- the may activity” physical re- that “strenuous dicated raising pressure, and further stated as sult his blood cramped posi- opinion that if or one takes bent liver additional the tion such nature as constrict may peripheral circulation. blood be into forced plaintiff proof that In the there is no instant case cramped hooking position the chains in a while may manipulating binder, nor the lever on supports testimony that con- It be said here plaintiff clusion, concerned, that there insofar as activity part. He knew how on his was strenuous apparently perform went about it task way. appear that he had It does not a methodical in any difficulty hooking pressing or- in the chains noted, on the binder. As before the lever down necessarily testimony what would follow indicates securing inference, that occasions the on some difficulty logs than in involved more load may from the however, not conclude, We 'others. proofs plaintiff us here that before found tbe task particularly question. Ap- difficulton the occasion in necessary parently pipe he did find it to use a employee. to seek available assistance from his fellow appear operation Neither does was other than brief. appellants it de

On behalf of is insisted McGregor De cision of Conservation Court partment, significant. here, Mich There, the award of was based on plaintiff here, act. There, as pre-existing condition,

had a in that case coronary of a em arteriosclerosis ployed vessel. He was ordinary as a fire times his warden, at duties were somewhat This while strenuous. Court, recognizing plaintiff’s the fact that duties involved compensation. hard ing labor, denied In reach Hagopian City Highland such conclusion support Park, proposition was cited plaintiff’s disability that was not due peculiar “causes and conditions characteristic of and employer.” to the of the business For like reasons appeal may the award board in the case at bar not be sustained under 7 of the statute. analogous A somewhat situation to that in presented instant case was in v. International Carter Corporation, plaintiff Detrola was 328 Mich 367. There by employed involving defendant in work inspection performing of mine detector In units. her required duties she was to exert muscular effort and difficulty using Apparently suffered her arms. period during engaged occupa- which she was in the began February, 1944, tion after the workmen’s by compensation was law amended PA 245. 1943, No difficulty finally diagnosed hypertrophy Her pressed of the which scalenus anticus muscle on the plexus, compressing of the cords brachial the axil- artery circulatory lary causing disturbance and V. PENEGOB. COOMBE pre- pain. condition, which resulted The position of the and use existing in muscle variation operation. The finally an relieved muscle, plain- an award entered commission reaching reversed. Court favor, which this tiff’s part (pp 369, said, indicated, was the conclusion 370): disability acci- from an not result did “Plaintiff’s compensable If event. dental or fortuitous ‘disability due to causes which is at all it must be as and conditions which culiar pe- of and are characteristic employer.’ CL to the of the business 17.220). (Stat Supp § 417.1 Ann Cum required the did “Plaintiff manual work respect it was of her In this

continuous use arms. factory jobs. many re The no different than sulting other of the scalenus anticus excessive movement unique muscle is not so ‘characteristic be peculiar employer.’ and Muscle use is to the business of the employments, common to most other permit compensation and the act in does juries caused this alone. Ex-Cell-O See Bederin v. and Corporation, Hagopian City 311 Mich Highland Park, 313 Mich 608.” question brings whether the award us to This theory upheld plaintiff on the is en- be should law. thereto under of the titled appeal an thereon. declined to base award The board proceeding and, ofwrit certiorari is before us on question whether there was stated, as before testimony appeal supporting the conclusion plaintiff to an award under was entitled board phase to this and without reference However, 7. agree cir- I cannot that under the situation, award was entitled cumstances part interpretation Any of 2. such claim involves by made law the amendments to repeated matter been a PA No 245. This has 1943, Michigan Reports. 654 348 by of and consideration discussion For Court. Hagopian Highland City the reasons set forth in of Ogle supra; Park, Arnold Co., Construction 333 therewith,' other decisions in accord the claim that the amendments made to the statute scope part the act of 1943 of 2 of broadened the law is not well In other founded. legislature change part words, the 2 of did so injuries the act to render nonaccidental com pensable thereunder. repetition prior

A what of has been said on occa- purpose. significant would serve sions no useful It is note, act 1943 however, of amended sec- statute, part tion of the hereinbefore cited. 7. occupa- Prior to such amendment tional diseases as defined related legislature in PA enlarged scope No 61. The amendment its arising to include disabilities out of and in the course employment and due to causes and conditions peculiar characteristic employer. business the; legislature, If at the same time the changed it is now claimed, the statute so as to make compensable injuries 2 all whether ac- arising cidental or otherwise out in the course employment, why necessary was it deemed amend section the manner indicated? specific language “disability” Under the in- used, “personal injury.” Bearing cluded in in mind that we are interpretation, statutory concerned here with the matter necessity give

we must of con- due portions tending all sideration to of the act to throw light legislative on the matter of intent. As declared Foundry in Mich Smith v. Wilson & Machine 487, statute “must be construed and ** n administered according terms, its to. scope may enlarged beyond its not be the terms its enactment.” ' V. PeNEGOB. CoOMBE appeal

The case should be remanded to the board to set aside the with directions award. J., Caer, J.

Sharpe, concurred with Plaintiff, (concurring). suffered J. Edwards, hemorrhage while seek- a brain occasioned stroke place logs on truck. ing chain a load con- hearing the effort incident and After plaintiff’s witness medical related, therewith cerned “It is concerning exertion,” “such testified my opinion hemorrhage.”' produce this that it can appeal compensation found board The workmen’s during injury the course of and out that his arose ample employment, evidence from there is of his finding be made. which such a could alleging dis- Plaintiff filed claim “personal injury” ability, alternatively on based opinion appeal “occupational disease.” granting likewise alterna- board tive : plaintiff re- fastened a load binder find that “We immediately

quiring very great and strenuous effort February prior falling an unconscious state may injury 17,1953. have caused Plaintiff’s been single all of the circumstances Under incident. injury pertaining plaintiff’s work and the sus- finding that it is immaterial whether tained, is our injury regular from the course of resulted strenu- exertion described herein or wheth- ous and unusual regularly engaged in such er, work, while single injured result of incident. injury compensable either event the is in view of Supreme Michigan covering Court decisions each type of ease. authority proposition clear “There is for the employee regularly performing an is where unusual very injury strenuous work but is due to a single particular although event no accident dr involved, circumstance is fortuitous Corpora- compensable. Anderson v. General Motors Ford Motor Com- tion, 313 Schinderle v. disability pany, is that a Mich 387. It also true compensable regular and cus- results tomary work an unusual and strenuous nature although injury, accidental fortuitous event or no single incident is involved.” hemorrhage ordinary This brain dis- rupture It ease of blood vessel covering resulted from a small life. of (perhaps previously weakened) in the physical the brain, of due to exertion hard employment. in course proof injury required No of “accidental” under following, in statute as amended 1943and for the my opinion Sheppard Michigan reasons in cited in v. Bank,

National Mich 348 577. Language previous of this Court in some cases* holding requirement implying proof a or pre “accident” arises where there is evidence of existing injury hereby ailment for overruled requirement may the reason that no such found in be compelling reasoning the act additional n onthis question opinion Mr. Justice Smith’s Sheppard Michigan supra, Bank, v. National decided this date. injury subsequent disability

The were related causally single to a The event. writer believes recovery be should allowed under the factual situa- tion related 2 above under act.

The award would be the same part For as under 7. the reasons I stated, con- affirming with Mr. cur Justice Black the award. 340 Mich Mich 189; struction (and Notably: McGregor subsequent Co., Wieda 585; 333 Mich Hagopian 234, v. Conservation ease quotations 652, 664; v. Croff American Box City Department, Lakey Foundry Nichols Central Crate Box& v. therefrom) Highland Board Park, 338 Mich 93, 101. ; Arnold & Machine 343 Mich v. Ogle 608, Co., Con Co., Penegor. Coombe opinion (concurring). must This be J. Smith, Sheppard our addendum with in connection read 577, 603, 348 Mich also Bank, National v. decided this

date. Sheppard purged Having of error ourselves long-insisted- judge-invented, respect to our with upon majority injury, requirement of fortuitous judicially our another of now abandons of our Court error, confusion, doubt, sources created differentiation dental (as requirement respects of acci- injury) who had the workman between injury pre-existing him who defect not. did doing injured his ordi- while

Ewart Coombe ordinary way. nary connec- The causal work undisputed. act The au- is clear and the tion thorizes been award- and it has to him accomplished. legislative intent has been ed. long nothing need be said. more last, At appellee.

Affirmed. Costs J. J., Smith, concurred with Black, compensa- (concurring). The award J. Kelly, part 2 of the workmen’s affirmed tion should be my I forth act for the reasons set Sheppard opinion Bank, National appellee. 633. Costs to part in the decision of this took no J., Voelker, case.

Case Details

Case Name: Coombe v. Penegor

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 10, 1957

Citation: 83 N.W.2d 603

Docket Number: Docket 23, Calendar 46,733

Court Abbreviation: Mich.