*1
Total
v
Petroleum
PETROLEUM,
FARRINGTON TOTAL
INC
(Calendar
7).
Argued
Docket No. 91677.
November
No.
De-
May
cided
1993.
Farrington petitioned
compensation
Richard
for workers’
on
19, 1986,
September
alleging disability
due to a heart
performing
during
employment
a result of
strenuous work
his
Petroleum,
magistrate
with Total
Inc. A
awarded benefits. The
Compensation
Board, affirmed,
Appeals
concluding
Workers’
support
that there was substantial evidence to
P.J.,
magistrate.
Appeals, Hood,
The Court of
and Maher
(Docket
Cynar, JJ.,
opinion per
in
affirmed
an
curiam
No.
113332).
appeals.
The defendant
opinion
by
joined by
In an
Mallett,
Justice
Chief Justice
Supreme
Cavanagh,
Boyle,
and Justices Levin Court
held:
Compensation Appellate
correctly
The Workers’
Commission
applied
reviewing
the substantial evidence standard in
magistrate’s findings.
Appeals
The Court of
and the wcac erred
failing
recognize
"significant
manner” standard for
determining eligibility
compensation
finding
and instead
only necessary
that it was
to ascertain whether the claimant’s
damage
However,
employment.
linked
when
fact,
applied
magistrate’s findings
that standard is
to the
supported
evidence,
which were
it is clear that
proof
claimant met his burden of
and that he is entitled to
benefits.
applied
reviewing
1. The
standards
be
a claim for
418.861a(2),
(3);
workers’
under MCL
17.237(861a)(2),
dependent
are
on when the matter is re-
Commission,
Compensation Appeal
viewed
the Workers’
not
initially.
when a claim is filed
Where a claim was reviewed
1, 1986, findings
compensa-
before October
of fact
a workers’
supported by
tion
were considered
if
conclusive
material,
competent,
preponderance
and a
of the evidence on
1, 1986,
Beginning
the whole record.
on October
the standard
References
2d,
Compensation
395-430;
Am Jur Workers’
686-721.
§§
Compensation.
See ALR Index under Workers’
for the Ryan, (by Jamieson, Morris, Hubbell & P.C. Morris), Christopher D. for the defendant.
Amicus Curiae: Ducey,
Conklin, Benham, Chuhran, Listman & Critchell), (by Michigan P.C. Martin L. Self- Insurers’ Association. myocar J. This action results from a
Mallett, plaintiff dial infarction1 suffered Richard Far rington performing as a result strenuous work during employment activities with defendant resulting Petroleum, Total Inc. Because of his myocardial injury commonly 1 A infarction is a cardiac known as a attack, however, "heart attack.” term The heart should not be con disturbances, injuries, rhythm with fused other heart such as cardiac congestive failure, myocardial heart or even sudden death. A infarc ischemia, heart, tion results from a cardiac or loss of blood flow to the enough prolonged enough is which severe to kill heart tissue and produce permanent ischemia must last injury cardiovascular claims in workers’ (1982). damage organ. Usually, structural to the twenty longer minutes or to result in irreversible Juge Phillips, to the muscle. See & A standard for new compensation, 43 La L R 442 Mich sought disability, plaintiff workers’ benefits. presents first issues.
This case two Appellate Compensation the Workers’ whether of review as the correct standard Commission used 17.237(861a)(3). 418.861a(3); MSA forth in MCL set The second is Appeals and the Court of whether the wcac legal proper to deter- standard used compen- injury was mine whether Compensation Disability the Workers’ sable under Act. applied appropriate hold that We wcac statutory review, an im- but utilized proper legal com- standard to determine pensability. applying Nevertheless, the law to Appeals benefits facts, Court of these we affirm the award decision.
I. FACTS began working in 1973. for defendant Plaintiff employed injury, he the time of his At gas manager station. at defendant’s self-service overseeing employee schedul- His duties included ing, payroll, premises, inven- maintenance stocking occasionally tory control, shelves and shoveling plow those the station’s snow in areas where February not
could reach. On began perspire plaintiff 6:15 a.m., about experience pains, dizziness, chest and shortness carrying breath, ten to fifteen cases soda while refill soda The cases station’s coolers. weighed approximately thirty pounds. Plaintiff *4 pains thirty stopped, rested until chest about forty onset, minutes after their but he contin- to to in his for the remain- ued der of the have discomfort chest
day. work and home Plaintiff left went p.m. approximately early or 1:00 hour at 12:30 an Total Petroleum following morning plaintiff to returned starting time. About work at 5:00 his usual a.m., plaintiff went to shovel snow. outside a.m., 11:00 shoveling approximately minutes, fifteen After he once again began perspire experience and pain, rested, He severe chest dizziness and nausea. sluggish. feel and Conse- but continued to tired quently, he left work and went home to rest. February day work,
The next at at again experi- approximately plaintiff 6:00 A.M., pain loading into enced severe chest the coolers. He did not subside. He while soda attempted pain relax, but the
subsequently left work at approximately 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. and was examined immediately doctor, a who admitted him to a hospital. Zegerius, There, Dr. he was treated a specialist cardiology. reoccurring pain ques-
Plaintiff’s chest and the changes electrocardiogram initially tionable in his Zegerius led Dr. to conclude that he suffered from anteroseptal posterior myocardial an acute in- Although farction at the time of admission. plaintiff’s enzyme initial blood tests did not reveal damage experience time, the heart he continued to pain. Zegerius diagnosed
chest Dr. plaintiff having angina and unstable admitted him for cardiac further evaluation. Doctors eventu- ally oxy- stabilized heart condition with gen nitroglycerin treatments. February plaintiff performed 28, 1986,
On test, treadmill routine machine for more than two minutes but could not endure the he
because
becoming "tight.”
felt his chest
March
On
sponge
plaintiff took a
bath at about 9:00 a.m. ap-At
became so tired that he returned to bed.
again complained
proximately
he
a.m.,
10:00
pain,
ekg
intense chest
and an
test showed that on
particular
myocár-
he
this
occasion
had suffered
*5
Dr. approxi- plaintiff 1987, on March examined mately plaintiff’s myocardial year infarc- one after quit plaintiff had smok- The doctor noted that tion. ing began ago. twenty years smok- Plaintiff about peak, age ing and, at his of seventeen rarely eight cigarettes per day. He to ten smoked beverages. Although plaintiff’s fa- used alcoholic ther had history hypertension, no there was other Plaintiff told Dr. familial disorders. of common Sentkeresty elevation of his that he had had a low weight pressure, it once he lost had but blood ago. During years improved two exam one or Sentkeresty, performed by a test Dr. revealed slightly pressure elevated. was in fact his blood high also but not abnor- cholesterol count was His mal. let fever at plaintiff Sentkeresty scar- Dr. noted that had age and rheumatic fever six however, risk factors were not believed be these myocardial infarction. for his Zegerius regard job, plaintiff told Dr. to his
With Petroleum Total every normally coolers filled soft drink that he during day day the winter and twice other during During Dr. his exam Sent- the summer. plaintiff keresty, that he considered stated although managerial that, duties as stressful good slept variably, generally and had felt he he *6 energy. sufficient Magistrate testifying Schroder, Dr.
In before Zegerius opined activities that work angina his unstable cause of were hospital and of his the time of admission to subsequent myocardial days infarction two later. Sentkeresty disputed the causal connection Dr. myo- plaintiff’s exertion at work and his between 12, 1987, the infarction. December cardial magistrate On plaintiff benefits for awarded period disability. claimed appeal parties subsequently filed briefs on
The April 1988, and the in March and to the wcac of 1988. The issued its decision October wcac employed the "substantial evidence” commission 418.861a(3); of review set forth MCL standard 17.237(861a)(3) magistrate’s to affirm the ample there and to conclude that was decision findings. opinion support The wcac dissent finding supported agreed magistrate’s that by competent, material, and substantial evidence argued record, whole but that the correct on the required magistrate’s of review preponderance findings supported by of the plaintiff be The evidence. dissent contended prove myocardial that his infarction was failed to preponderance under the standard. work related Appeals unanimously affirmed The Court App majority opinion. 298; 472 Mich 189 wcac granted defendant’s 60 This Court Michigan appeal, and the Self- motion for leave Mich requested appear ami- as Insurers’ Association position. supporting cus defendant’s curiae II. OF APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE STANDARD this whether The first issue before Court is appellate applied the correct standard wcac it evidence” review when test used "substantial 418.861a; MSA set forth in MCL as 17.237(861a). § to the 861a added wdca part July 30, 1985. It 1985 PA effective provides pertinent part:
(1) Any a claim for review matter for which 859a has been filed shall be heard under section and decided appellate commission. of fact made Until October shall a worker’s be sup- if considered conclusive the commission material, ported by competent, preponder- and a of the evidence on the record.
ance whole *7 1, Beginning findings 1986 of fact October (cid:127) compensation magistrate a made worker’s shall the if be considered conclusive commission material, competent, supported by and substantial on the whole As used this evidence record. subsection, "substantial evidence” means such evi- record, dence, considering the a whole as reason- accept adequate justify mind as the able conclusion. will the claim reviewed after Because wcac 1, 1986, we hold the evi- October that substantial 861a(3) appro- § test set forth in dence priate standard. unambiguous. plain meaning § As
The of 861a is language held, this Court has where of interpretation; clear, no statute is it must be there is need Owendale-Gagetown applied as written. 209 v Total Petroleum of Court 1, Ed, 8; 413 317 School Dist v State Bd of Mich (1982). plaintiff argues that NW2d 529 The apply evidence commission must standard for the substantial coming any under review matter 1, after 1986. Defendant asserts October key appropriate date to determine and not a claimant ñrst ñles for benefits when when a claimant files for wcac review. Defendant interpreted should be contends that the statute filing compensa- any read that tion initial for workers’ 1986 be held to the after October should substantial evidence standard. legislative by a com-
The intent is discoverable plete reading § 861a. It is a rule well-established provisions statutory of a stat- construction that provi- light the other ute must be construed sions of the statute to purpose apparent carry out Special Legislature. Dagenhardt Engineering, Inc, 520; 345 Machine & (1984); DAIIE, 404 Mich NW2d 164 Workman v 477, 507; 274 373 A careful review of setting begins by § 861a 1 reveals that subsection jurisdiction. As the bounds of the commission’s power stated, has the and decide the wcac hear only has those matters which a claim of review 3 further define the been filed. Subsections scope appellate jurisdiction by commission’s advancing applicable standard of review for magistrate. In of facts made case, the made his decision on instant December after the well October cutoff. adopt any language did not set indicate that the standards review
would forth in subsections dependent upon and were initially an the claim was filed. Absent when *8 Legislature, express of limitation statement impose improper such for this Court to it would be 201 210 442 Mich Owendale-Gagetown, supra. If the a restriction. Legislature the standard of review intended depend initial claim for benefits was on when the filed, pressly contends, it would have ex as defendant for In sections of the stated. other wdca, Legislature language example, that included provision application specifically limited the of application depending upon first the date an Legislature filed.2 inadvertently assume that Courts cannot from statute the lan omitted one placed guage statute, then, that it in another assumption, apply what is not on the basis that People 490, Jahner, 504; 446 there. Mich (1989); Court NW2d 151 Voorhies v Recorder’s Judge, 155, 157-159; 189 NW case, chose not to In the instant language, it on other occa include such had triggered sions, a new standard wcac original filing on the basis of a claim’s date. review may short, own In this Court Legislature not do on its accord do. what has seen fit not to legislative history, Moreover, the evidenced previous amendments, drafts of the also contains Legislature- no intended that indication filing original date be the decisive factor determining Section 861a review. part 103, was enacted as PA which con- public tains several amendments the wdca. This procedure for act adjudicating the administration restructured compensation contested workers’ 17.237(862X2) (where See, 418.862(2); e.g., MCL MSA an initial application filing 418.858(2); attorney for workers’ is filed after March payments); stay claim of does not medical MCL for a review 17.237(858X2) (sets forth standard to calculate charged applications initially filed after fees those (where 17.237(859a) 31, 1986); 418.859a; MSA initial March application MCL an compensation is for workers’ filed after March appeal, their claims on claimants must seek a review of with wcac). *9 211 Total Petroleum v began Originally, 1985 PA 103 as SB claims.3 7. the wcac would of SB stated that 274(7) Section use the substantial 7 any evidence standard Legislature did not indicate it reviewed.4 The claim a imposed. specific should be date when this new standard stipulate did, however, Bill 7
Senate
of review would
evidence standard
substantial
applicable
the wcac
in those cases reviewed
be
after the effective date
if the matter was filed
any
other subse
1985 PA 103. Neither SB nor
7
language
any
quent
of the bill contained
version
application
limit
of the substantial
that would
original
review on the basis of when
evidence
application
Although
filed.5
the
the
for benefits was
vague
regard why
legislative history
to
with
chosen,
there is no
date was
October
indication that
triggered
1, 1986,
as a cutoff
this date was intended
upon
filing.
one’s initial
changes
of the new structural
The nature
adopted by
Legislature in 1985 to reform the
compensation appeals procedure provide
workers’
insight
appropriate
standard of
further
into
system
1, 1986. The new
review after October
supposed
implemented by
the amendments was
legislative plan
phase
in the
for reform on
As evidenced
the statutes
scheduled basis.
Legislature sought
themselves,
to create a
appellate
by January 1,
functional
commission
magistrates by
1986,6
and a functional board
magistrates’
jurisdiction
March
1986.7 31,
April on
1986.8 Thereaf-
then became effective
3
Labor,
571, 584-585;
Dep’t
384
Civil Service Comm
728
4
274(7).
SB §
5
(S-2)
(S-l)
(S-3)
861a(a)
1;
3;
7
7
Draft
SB 7
Draft
SB
See
of SB
§
(H-4).
(H-3),
(S-3);
(S-4), R-l;
2;
7
SB 7
Draft
SB 7
SB 7
SB
6
17.237(274X1).
418.274(1); MSA
MCL
17.237(213X1).
418.213(1);
MCL
17.237(206).
418.206; MSA
MCL
This
structure and the substantial evidence
new
legisla-
fulfill the
review standard were enacted to
Michigan
purpose
courts have
tive
held,
at the time. As
statutory
rule of
construction
a fundamental
purpose
the
and intent of the
is to ascertain
enacting
provision.
Legislature in
In re Certified
710, 722;
433 Mich
449
660
Question,
case,
novo
standard
In this
the wcab’s
de
review
pre-1985
compensation sys-
under the
amendment
to decrease the endless back-
tem was eliminated
giving greater
log
appeals by
of
deference to the
findings,
discourage
filing
magistrates’
and to
17.237(861a)(l).
9
[11]
10
MCL
MCL
MCL
418.206(2);
418.847(2); MSA
418.859a(l);
MSA
MSA
17.237(206)(2).
17.237(847X2).
17.237(859a)(l),
MCL
418.861a(l);
MSA
a claim heard
pre-1985
derance
review when the
sured that
effect under the
MSA
MSA
appellate commission had to review the matter. See MCL
[12]
The
MCL
17.237(266X4).
17.237(206X3),
of the evidence
Legislature
amendment
418.861a(10); MSA
by hearing
preponderance of
prior system
claim was filed. The
also
MCL
system
standard,
adopted specific
418.860;
referee or
17.237(861a)(10).
would still be decided
would even
which was the
evidence standard of review in
assigned
statutory provisions
17.237(860),
provisions
be'
to the
applicable
existing
under the
that ensured that
MCL
wcab
if the new
418.266(4);
418.206(3);
under the
also en-
prepon-
of
Total Petroleum
v
Opinion op the Court
appeals.
overwhelming
Civil Ser
number
of an
Dep’t
571, 584-
Labor, vice Comm
(1986);
Ford
Holden v
see also
585;
A construction of subsections permit application evidence the substantial only initial cases in which in those standard application hearing 1, was filed after October legislative purpose contrary 1986, would run outgoing unclogging the docket of wcab. allowing appellate commission Rather than purpose begin serving the new under its intended permit amendments, would which wcac begin controlling docket, the defendant to argues its own intended all claims system from March filed in the new first subject to the stricter until be October preponderance This re- the evidence standard. legislative contrary intent because to the sult backlog prolong interpretation would this intended to address. the amendments were purpose Legislature’s that all clear *11 1, after the wcac October claims reviewed test 1986, the substantial evidence be reviewed changes implemented by the 1985 the to effect nothing in the There is amendments. wdca group that the of cases that indicates amendments directly present Although not address the issue with its this Court did 861a(3) Holden, the effects of accordance § we summarized language history stated: and when we 1986, 103, 1, beginning de novo review Act October Under Henceforth, findings of fact a workers’ eliminated.
was conclusive, compensation magistrate considered on supported by were to be wcac, appellate by the if administrative review material, "competent, evidence on the whole and substantial 418.861a(3); 17.237(861a)(3).] citing MCL record.” [Id. op the Court 1, 1986, April filed between originally, generis treated sui should be September filing dates. of their initial because simply LEGAL STANDARD III. APPROPRIATE turn to whether nowWe wcac to legal Appeals proper used Court whether determine under the wdca.
compensable Co, 405 Mining Iron Marquette In Kostamo (1979), this Court 105, 116; 274 Mich held: provide compensation does not law The workers’ person by an illness or
compensation for a afflicted or aggravated by his work not caused or disease re- different result working conditions. Nor is a point progressed to the debility has quired because pain or cannot work without the worker where cannot be Accordingly, injury. awarded because damage ued work. may suffer heart the worker if he contin- would be work-related which or has accelerated Unless the work illness, or deterioration aggravated disease work, it, coupled and, thus, or contributed deterioration, illness, in fact disease or with compensation. payable. is not injury, causes an [Emphasis added.] alternate Kostamo, advanced an In this Court compensability to determine two-pronged standard ordinary an An with employee under the wdca. was entitled or condition preexisting disease shown either if it could be compensation, workers’ (1) aggravated accelerated or the work it, or condition, contributed to and thus disease disease, in fact work, coupled with the injury. caused amended Kostamo,
In after *12 Total Petroleum occupational injury” "personal definition of the chapter wdca, MCL the under diseases 17.237(401), specific and that 418.401; MSA chapter injuries 418.301; MSA 3, MCL under 17.237(301). amendments, effective enacted language following January to 1, 1982, added the of these sections: the definitions aging of the and conditions disabilities Mental limited to heart including but not
process, if conditions, compensable shall be cardiovascular the aggravated or or accelerated to contributed employment [Emphasis significant manner. in a added.] "significant
By placing amendment manner” 401(2)(b) 301(2) of the §§ wdca, in both Legislature apply the standard
intended chapter. Consequently, invoking both either claims prongs Plaintiff was were also effected. of Kostamo resulting disability from awarded (Kostamo’s prong). A heart second a heart injury meaning within is a "heart condition” aging process, the terms "conditions of including to heart and cardiovascu- not limited but added.) (Emphasis .” . . . lar conditions Appeals argues held and the Court Plaintiff apply significant manner amendments prong. only Plain first to claims under Kostamo’s adopted Legislature that because tiff contends prong language from the first the amendment standard,15 it intended to restrict the Kostamo occupational significant amendment manner has prong "the work the Kostamo standard states: The first and, illness, aggravated deterioration disease or accelerated language Similarly, thus, . . . .” at 116. to it Id. contributed and cardiovascular that heart adopted states aggravated or accel- compensable to or if "contributed conditions are 418.401(2)(b); employment MCL manner.” erated 17.237(301X2). 17.237(401)(2)(b), 418.301(2); MSA MCL *13 201 442 Mich
216 disagree. prong. We We covered that diseases probative plaintiff’s analysis of the find do not argument legislative fails in this case. The intent Legislature simultane the fact that the to consider chapters ously 3 and sections amended the same Statutory the same amendments enacted 4. Legislature date on the same effective become subject relating matter must be to the same and construed determining together purposes of for People Rogers, legislative 602; 438 Mich intent. v (1991); Secretary State, Reed v of 475 717 (1950). body of 491 The 108; Mich 41 NW2d early legislative including 1980’s, in the enacted reforms amendments, manner higher designed impose on claimants were brought proof, the claim is of whether standard under specific injuries chapter under 3 for or occupational chapter 4 for diseases.16 legislative policy Thus, evidenced for restrict 1982 amendments would disease after the prong of under the second to claimants benefits case, could estab- Kostamo, in the instant who sig- were lish that their heart disease aggravated by employment. nificantly or caused requirement that standard is the Included this alleged prove cardiac in- claimants also beyond resulting jury activities went from work underlying symptoms the manifestation significantly injury must be disease. The heart comprehensive purpose 1980 and revisions A of the modify system compensation or was to overturn the workers’ interpretations placed upon expansive the act this Court. payable Although to workers of benefits the dollar amount increased, eligible there can be no doubt through its 1980 and 1981 also intended eligibility qualifica- to narrow and restrict reform efforts tions. 699 655, 666-667; Corp, Chrysler 455 NW2d [Dean compen- Studley, also & Workers’ See VanderLaan process study legislative in Michi- A case sation reform: (1981).] gan, 14 Mich J L Ref 459-460 U Petroleum v Total op the Court considering aggravated by employment caused occupational totality factors and the all the nonoccupa circumstances and health claimant’s factors.17 tional Appeals bar, the Court of
In the case applicable they misstated the erred when wcac legislative subsequent legal to the 1982 panel "because noted that bene- amendments. prong pursuant to the second fits were awarded properly Kostamo, the wcac we conclude that required employ that it was not determined 401(2)(b). language 'significant § manner’ necessary *14 only Rather, to determine it was damage plaintiff’s linked to heart was whether App employment.” 307-308. Miklik v 189 Mich Michigan Special Co, 364; 329 Machine Miklik Court ruled that 713 The damage; it cause of the "work need not be the sole employment is a cause.” Id. at if the is sufficient original.) opinion (Emphasis in the 370. plaintiff upon premise 1982 a that before
based relationship only mere causal be- need show a employment. injury As the Court tween heart stated, damage, a "heart such as would result from compensable attack, if linked sufficient is workplace.” Id. at 368. This is evidence to the significant clearly man- standard than the lower adopted by ner amendment recognize however, did, Miklik decision
1982. Our relationship finding a causal that the standard for emphasized changed the amendments. We after "solely the statu- on that our decision was based 17 might though everyday contrib- work activities Even a claimant’s manner, must also in a a factfinder ute to a heart everyday activities in relation the causal effect of work consider the claimant’s other, nonoccupational These factors would factors. diet, include, weight, previous example, age, cardiac ailments consumption genetic predispositions, injuries, and the claimant’s drugs. or other alcohol and use of tobacco 442 Mich 201 op the Court injury.” alleged language
tory at the time acknowledged Thus, 368, n 4. Miklik Id. changed the standard
the compensability cluding amendments types conditions, in- for certain myocar- as ailments such cardiovascular Appeals in- in the The Court of dial infarctions. recognize case, however, this new failed stant standard. iv. causal connection supra, Co, in Holden v Ford Motor As we stated analysis appellate judicial review, limited our on findings con are to the issue whether the wcac’s sistent with the appel concept of administrative than de novo review review that is less late determining magistrate’s decision was whether the competent, supported by material, and substantial 267.18 record. Id. at evidence on the whole 17.237(861a), statute, 418.861a; provides, MCL The relevant part: (3) Beginning made of fact October conclu- shall be considered worker’s material, by competent, supported if sive and substantial subsection, ering adequate the commission As used in this evidence on the whole record. evidence, consid- means such "substantial evidence” record, accept mind will whole as a reasonable justify the conclusion. (3) record” means the entire As used in ... "whole *15 hearing including of the evidence in favor and of the all record all the evidence against determination. a certain commission, (10) may panel or a of the The commission opinion adopt, part, the order and in whole or opinion compensation magistrate as the order and of worker’s the commission. (11) panel shall or a of the commission The commission only specific law of fact or conclusions of review those parties requested reviewed. that the have be (12) may panel of the commission The commission or a magistrate for matter to a worker’s remand a purposes the record is insufficient for complete supplying if it determined that record purposes of review. Total Petroleum Opinion op the Court Appeals Court of consider This Court and the credibility issues of of live whether witnesses to be determined there are magistrate, by the the magistrate magistrate ignored by the evidence considered and and the and the taken the care wcac, reasoning analysis of and the and wcac, at magistrate and the wcac. 268.] [Id. conducting qualitative quantitative and After statute, evidence, required by analysis findings. Citing magistrate’s adopted the wcac Zeger- of Dr. unambiguous testimony and the clear inconsistent testi- argumentative and the and ius the wcac expert, of defendant’s medical mony magistrate’s decision. ample support found argues that even under Plaintiff standard, We recovery. he is entitled manner supports the evidence agree. We believe even when reached conclusion examining After under the new standard. analyzed Dr. Sentker- injury, after the plaintiff year one disputed expert, defendant’s medical esty, and his plaintiff’s work causal connection between cardiac He testified: injury. while he myocardial infarction occurred [T]he complete rest and under close observa-
was at bed place any coronary tion in a care unit. One cannot relationship upon activity his work cause of [sic] Clearly if he had the place employment. no describe then there is symptoms that he does represent dispute symptoms reason to this. These (13) pursuant to this section shall A review of the evidence quantitative analysis qualitative include both a full, thorough, fair review thereof. and ensure a evidence acting findings' made the commission of fact fraud, powers, shall be conclusive. in the absence of within its The court appeals supreme shall have the and the court any questions power of the commission .... involved with final order to review of law *16 442 Mich 201 220 Opinion of the Court coronary expression underlying simply an process angina pectoris and atherosclerotic nothing more than that. although Sentkeresty
Moreover, Dr. testified that bring angina, unequivo- he exertion could cally about precipi- disagreed could in fact that exertion myocardial tate a infarction: my opinion, anybody in nor can I think of
Not examined any my personal pa- I ever actually make that tients statement, whom one could illustrated, certainly it and is well and my quotes and stories rela- you don’t need usual attacks, stress, work, on in heart but tive Mr. ple so good Farrington certainly perfectly exam- myocardial infarction occurred while since being unit coronary at rest care while monitored, despite still occurred that.
Despite Sentkeresty’s assertions, Dr. he did con- admitting plaintiff purpose cede that the would impending myocardial have been to fend off an testimony infarction. The found this argumentative Sentkeresty’s Dr. and inconsistent. rejected in favor of those of were Zegerius, specific Dr. who concluded that work myocar- events contributed to eventual dial infarction.
Despite testimony conflict the medical regarding precipitating literature the existence of myocardial infarctions, causes of recognized this Court has stress, times,
that work-related at can precipitate injury.19 cardiac When confronted with 19 Kostamo, Association, supra citing Re American Heart stress, port of the committee on (Reprinted strain and heart disease Chrysler Circulation, 1977), See, e.g., v p Zaremba 55 4. from No Corp, 377 Mich 226; (1966); Mottonen v Calumet & 745 NW2d Hecla, Inc, McNiece, 659; See also Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc, (Englewood Heart Disease and the Law NJ: Total Petroleum reconciling conflicting problem of medical evi- *17 statutory claims with the dence cardiovascular causally requirement injury that the be connected employment, this at- claimant’s Court to the tempted noting the confusion to resolve even, helpful, testimony may be medical [w]hile ultimately, decisive, obligated the trier of fact determining legal testimony all the consider causation. [Kostamo 131.] plaintiff’s myocardial infarction in
The fact that away from the work the instant case occurred place days work- and two after the last strenuoús magistrate’s activity did not conclude the related analysis. injury had been docu- After the heart necessáry mented, found it to re- specific circumstances that trace those events myo- concéivably have led to the claimant’s could infarction. cardial suggested, in Court addition to
As Kostamo "potentially significant testimony, medical other equation”20 are the factors in the causal temporal to include episodes proximity to the of the cardiac experience, physical stress to which the work plaintiff subjected, employ the conditions of was repeated ment, after each and the return work episode. forth in Id. at 130. These factors set course, are, all inclusive. After the Kostamo not "significant amend manner” enactment occupational ments, factors must now be these together totality of claimant’s considered with analyze the heart whether health circumstances proposition 1961), acceptance indicating nationwide precipitate disability physical or death. can cardiac exertion added). (emphasis Id. at 131 442 Mich significantly work-related was caused events.21 indicates, the record in the instant case
As the magistrate’s analysis included a number of these plaintiff’s lay testimony causal elements. The temporal proximity between demonstrates experience. episodes and the work As cardiac plaintiff experienced indicates, intense record chest cases of soda. following day moving pain February 25, 1986, while on symptoms The same returned the shoveling again, snow, and on while reloading February 27, 1986, soda into the while occasions, each of these coolers. On chest accompanied perspira- pain by nausea, was physical tion, and stress to which dizziness. plaintiff subjected constituted the most strenu- *18 managerial part duties, most of which ous of his sedentary Despite in nature. these cardiac were episodes, position required repeatedly him to his His exertion return to work after each occurrence. eventually hospitalization and, accord- caused his ing treating myocardial physician, in- to his his morning days of farction two March testifying physicians nonoccupational precipitated later on Physical 1986. examinations both significant any did not reveal health factor that would have or injury. heart instant magistrate specified The never whether he was imposing However, manner test. on testimony, the basis of this was inescapable "led to the conclusion that Plaintiff’s 'premonitory symptoms’ heart attack and were magis- solely activity.” of his work result emphasized presented "[t]he in this trate facts present strongest possible case scenario relationship disability . . . .” The work cardiac magistrate’s supports the conclusion. record n 17. See Total Petroleum plaintiff’s myocardial The fact that infarction hospi days his occurred two after admission to require closely does, however, us to examine tal the medical evidence that Zegerius Dr.
led delayed conclude that the injury onset of heart despite causally work, connected lapse. Kostamo, the time In 1979 in this Court upon pre relied cipitating possible, medical evidence that stated leading
events to a heart were that, cases, the causal events but most passed years were unknown. Fourteen have since in the Kostamo was decided. Recent advances pathophysiology myocardial infarctions have insight provided physicians with a keener into may injury, those events which specifically result trigger conceivably events that a those delayed myocardial infarction.22 knowledge regarding
Considering the increased (the Specifically, plaque fatty deposits on the inner abnormal (the formation, presence, layer artery) an and thrombosis vessel) occluding prove helpful development may a a blood clot explaining found that delayed myocardial infarction. Medical researchers have accepted accumulated data warrant a re-examination of the that, (i.e., triggering activity view in activities known that: sudden cardiac death is more in the absence of an obvious cases), myocardial unrelated to infarction is 60-70% immediately prior to its occurrence. ... It is now (1) infarction, myocardial frequent the onset of as well as after the normal time of (2) awakening; a and myocardial the occurrence of silent ischemia has (3) morning increase; physical parallel there are identifiable ischemia; psychologic triggers of silent thrombosis com-
plicating ruptured plaque myocardial atherosclerotic causes *19 (5) infarction; stages plaques pass through activity of different (6) rupture; presumed and grip, vasoconstriction in atherosclerotic likelihood of activities such as hand- exercise, exposure inappropriate bicycle and to cold cause (7) arteries; coronary morn- trigger ing physiologic changes likely myo- activities cause to infarction, surges pressure, cardial such as arterial blood platelet sympathetic activity, blockade infarction. aggregability; and beta and aspirin, processes, prevent and which inhibit these Muller, [Emphasis triggers added. Probable of onset infarction, Cardiology myocardial acute 12 Clinical 474.] pathogenesis plaque ruptures in the the role of myocardial infarctions, the it was reasonable for Zegerius rely testimony of Dr. to on the repeated exertion and to conclude that shoveling carrying the soda and snow were bottles triggered separate three work-related events myocardial infarction.23 As eventual Zegerius Dr. noted: contributing presence a factor with [A]s disease,
preexisting artery I coronary believe over- just moderately a exertion or precipitating strenuous exertion is causing patients
factor in some and shown, rup- plaque Assuring As or recent medical studies have may play tures myocardial thrombosis a role in onset of and triggered by physical Ciampricotti El infarctions stress. & Gamal, rupture myocardial plaque producing infarc- Exercise-induced tion, Cardiology, pp Medical have 12 Int’l J of 102-108. studies coronary revealed that almost all plaque rupture, dial infarction. Most arteries showed infarct-related angina myocar- pathological basis of and unstable importantly, phenomenon helpful this delayed myocardial explaining the of a infarction. Medical onset changes by plaque "dynamic noted initiated research has rapid rupture may the symptoms medical shoveling relatively long explaining have or evolution thus sporting activity delay and the onset between end sudden Id. at 108. the basis of this recent death.” On research, plaintiff’s carrying rupture and initial stress of soda bottles may produced plaque in a with snow have that small thrombosis, expanded reoccurring with incident or a mural strenuous each activity eventually myocardial and led to work Muller, hospitalized. supra, p n 22 474. See also infarction while infarction, Toiler, Analysis possible triggers myocardial of acute (the study), Cardiology, pp 66 Am J of 25. MILIS triggers A of the role of acute of ami reexamination [acute
myocardial due to in in is now warranted advances infarction] understanding plaque Assuring and role of thrombosis showing pathophysiology the increased the view that present study, an of ami recent studies morning findings challenge of ami. incidence These day’s activity. In the is unrelated ami commonly reported possible triggers the most upset physical activity. Both mental stress were emotional rupture activity may predispose plaque physical and coronary artery plasma and and and by increasing pressure blood occlusion by producing catecholamines and vasoconstriction coagulability. enhanced *20 v Total Petroleum by Riley, J. Opinion heart, angina by placing a demand on the unstable required, and if the heart increased workload is unsta- deprived supply, may it become its blood develop angina at that certainly may ble and he point. that, in instant opined
Dr. further Zegerius case, angina precipitated "unstable at work and that this was by heavy exertion angina factor to his unstable contributing major and eventual infarction.” syndrome, myocardial support medical research examined here Recent Zegerius’ testimony. Dr.
Therefore, to legal the correct applying fact, magistrate’s findings sup- which are evidence, it ported plaintiff is clear proof "significant met his burden under Although and is to benefits. manner” test entitled it Appeals we reverse the Court of insomuch as standard, applied wrong legal we affirm the award of benefits. JJ., C.J., and Levin Boyle,
Cavanagh, J. Mallett, with concurred in (dissenting part). I with
Riley, agree J. While regarding parts the issues resolved majority i holdings, major- those because join utilizes determined ity inappropriately standard, legal under an incorrect I respectfully dissent from the holding part Court’s iv.
i recognized As in 1982 majority, Legis- lature amended the wdca that a claim- require ant injury who has suffered from heart or cardio- employment vascular conditions establish that con- aggravated tributed or accelerated the 442 Mich Riley, J. manner to recover in a 418.301, 418.401; act. MCL under 17.237(401). 17.237(301), component but a at issue were
The amendments *21 of the which was a broad reformation of wdca, environment by crippled a economic motivated the need to reduce burden and perceived and a then-existing the enterprise by imposed upon costs free of portion A the reform major .1 wdca entailed interpreta expansive the of restriction the courts: by on business liability placed tions comprehensive 1980 and 1981 purpose A compensation system was revisions to overturn the workers’ expansive modify interpretations Although upon by this Court. the placed the act 1Indeed, reducing legislation’s proponents explained of the to the wbca was essential eco- costs the then-current excessive Michigan: nomic survival that, elections, during prior Since to prior- compensation highest
everybody ity and other states said that worker’s Michigan. industry to We cannot afford lose the State going jobs people in this We cannot afford to see to state. .... priority; a one that we have I think it is Number One neglected. pushed we have we have aside. One that One that by going study pacify saying this that we are to have tried committee, necessary committee, very study but it is one that is or that Michigan get as that we at if want to retain we provide jobs and not as an industrial state than can [sic] (Senator Welborn).] of the Senate 820 wasteland. Journal [1980 colleague’s just premonitions before Senator Guastello echoed of the reform bill: introduction today, and in us here both on the floor of Senate [A]U galleries, with real of truth as far as are faced moment Michigan think moment of truth is is concerned and I simply climate, going healthy economic are we to do insure a —what state, only in this but our chil- not for ourselves Journal of the Senate 822.] dren. [1980 (Senator DeMaso). the Senate 1310 also 1980 Journal of See v Total Petroleum Riley, J. eligi- dollar amount of payable benefits to workers increased, ble for there can be no doubt that 1980 also intended through its and 1981 reform efforts to narrow and Chrysler Corp, 699 eligibility qualifications. restrict [Dean 666-667; 434 Mich 455 NW2d
(1990).] fact, In recognized majority, amendments at issue were specifically designed to replace the liberal standard of for cardio- recovery vascular injuries established Kostamo v Mar- Co, quette Mining 105, 116; Iron legislative The un- intent was doubtedly protect from employers unfairly pay- ing compensation to workers suffering inju- ries not significantly caused employment.
specific legislative history Legisla- reveals that ture believed that the unamended statute did "not *22 prescribe definite standards as to what constitutes compensable heart or mental disabilities.” Work- Compensation Force, ers’ Reform Report Task the Special Committee to Study Compen- Workers’ sation, December, 1980, Hence, Issue propo- No. 2c. nents of the bill maintained "that the lack of such standards has led to reckless judicial interpreta- tion of the disability applies standard as it to heart and mental resulting compensation cases in being paid to workers whose was not work disability A Kostamo, related.” Id. copy supra, was even attached to the task force report discussing the Legislature, therefore, issue. Id. The amended the prohibit to for "heart wdca cardiovascular conditions” unless were "con- they tributed to or aggravated or accelerated by the employment in a significant manner.” MCL Riley, J. 418.401(2)(b); 17.237(301X2);
418.301(2); MCL MSA 17.237(401)(2)(b).2 employment sum, to whether the In determine injury, aggravated to cardiovascular contributed importance both the factfinder should consider totality any claim- of the incident and the work nonoccupational factors. other health and ant’s employ- determines Unless aggravating factor ment was recovery permitted. totality circumstances, no ii ignored any event, all of fact below In the triers granted Legislature’s mandate benefits relying recov an liberal standard of on erroneous appropriately ery. Hence, trier of fact did not surrounding deter circumstances to examine question significantly mine if aggravated by plaintiff’s employment. Because findings premised an incorrect of fact were on suspect. legal they inherently standard, Never are findings accepts majority theless, those Therefore, I write conclusive separately the instant case. I on those because believe reliance the clear intent is unwise and contradicts finding subject such fact higher degree scrutiny. Indeed, the Court’s utili deprives those zation of the conclusions below presumed adjudicative of fact their role finders they possessed opportunity because never light legal the facts in of the correct examine *23 majority’s upon Moreover, standard. reliance denigrates scientific the role authorities ordinary Similarly, prohibits also "[a]n wdca public generally exposed disease of life to which the employment. outside 17.237(401)(2)(b). 418.401(2)(b); .” . . MCL Total Petroleum Riley, J. by improperly assuming that such au factfinder by thorities would be utilized factfinder.3 permit factfinder to deter better course would persua mine which authorities of causation are Thus, I for a sive. trial on the would remand this case new legal light of the correct
merits standard.
Brickley JJ., Griffin, concurred with Riley, J._ 3Furthermore, appears such reliance unwarranted as it tends to recovery by positing nearly any activity
vitiate the standard of may "significant” subsequent have a causal connection to a See, ante, 223-224, injury. e.g., Hence, pp 23. ns the standard of recovery appears nearly generous to be as the Kostamo standard clearly rejected Legislature. by the