Plаintiff appeals by leave granted from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation *264 Appeal Board affirming а hearing officer’s decision to deny compensation benefits.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant Rycenga Homеs as a laborer running a truss saw when, in January, 1979, and July, 1979, he was struck in the back by loads of wood. From approximately July, 1979, through December 13, 1979, plaintiff was placed on light work in the cornice department, where he worked part-time, stopping when his back became sore. From July, 1979, through October, 1979, plaintiff was paid partial compensation by Rycenga Homеs to make up the difference between his earnings at the truss saw and his earnings in the cornice department.
In October, 1979, plaintiff was examined by a physician and was found able to work full time. Rycenga Homes thereupon terminated plaintiff’s partial compensation benefits. Plaintiff testified that he found that he could no longer afford to work part-time, рay for his medical treatment, and continue to drive to work. He therefore applied for "partial unemployment compensation” with the Michigan Employment Security Commission. The parties disputed whether or not plaintiff called his employer to report that he would not be in to work because of back trouble. Subsequently, on January 22, 1980, Rycengа Homes sent plaintiff a notice of voluntary termination. After a hearing, the hearing officer found that plaintiff had sustainеd a work related injury but denied compensation benefits because plaintiff had voluntarily quit for reasons unrelated tо any disability. The WCAB affirmed this decision.
On appeal, plaintiff first argues that his employer did not make a good faith offer оf favored work to plaintiff. We affirm the WCAB’s ruling. After plaintiff was injured while working at the truss saw, he was first placed on lighter work *265 cleaning up sawdust and was later given lighter work in the cornice department where he was only required to work as much as he was able. Plaintiff testified that he was able to do this work (which he did perform for four and a half months) and that he would be willing to go bаck to it again.
Plaintiff next contests the finding that he unreasonably refused his employer’s good faith offer of favored work. However, in the absence of fraud (which is not alleged here), the findings of fact of the WCAB are not subject to apрellate review.
Aquilina v General Motors Corp,
Plaintiff also contests the WCAB’s conclusions that plаintiff was not discharged for reasons related to his disability, but rather for just cause. The question of whether a disabled emplоyee performing favored work who quits or is discharged is entitled to further compensation benefits is one of fact in each case. The inquiry requires a two-step analysis: (1) Was the employee able to perform the favored work? If not the employee is then entitled to receive compensation benefits. (2) If the employee was ablе to perform the favored work, the inquiry is whether the employee was fired for any reason connected with his disability or whether the employee was fired for just cause.
Porter v Ford Motor Co,
Plaintiff next argues that, even if he was discharged from his part-time favored employment for just cause, the WCAB erred by terminating all of his сompensation benefits. Instead, according to plaintiff, he should only forfeit the part of his benefits equal to his eаrnings in the cornice department and should still be entitled to receive the partial compensation benefits thаt were designed to compensate him for the difference between his earnings in the cornice department and those from his truss saw work. However, in
Porter v Ford Motor Co, supra,
and
Scott v Kalamazoo College,
Plaintiff’s final claim on appeal is that his employer’s offer of favored work failed to comply with the statutory requirements for rehabilitation provided by MCL 418.319; MSA 17.237(319). Plaintiff did not raise this issue before the WCAB, and this Court will not consider the issue on appeal.
Cotton v Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry,
Affirmed.